Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

(By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

STORNOWAY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Before we start Questions, I would make an appeal, as courteously as possible, that supplementary questions and answers should be as brief as Celtic blood allows.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

European Commission

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the European Commission.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I have at present no plans to meet members of the European Commission.

Mr. MacCormick: I find it amazing to hear that the Secretary of State has no plans to meet the Commissioners. Does he not realise that at the present time debates are taking place concerning Scottish fishermen? It is totally outrageous that we are being presented with a 12-mile limit off the coast of Scotland

when we ought to have at least a 100-mile limit. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise, lastly, that he is a member of the last London Government to have any connection with Scotland—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was prepared before I made my appeal, but I hope that hon. Members will co-operate.

Mr. Millan: I think that the hon. Gentleman is, in fact, talking about meetings of the Council of Ministers and not meetings of the Commission. The Minister of State met one of the Commissioners, Mr. George Thomson, only last week.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I welcome the report from Brussels regarding the agreement over the question of 200 miles—I think we will hear more about that this afternoon—but will the Secretary of State confirm that what matters to Scottish fishermen now, when the 200-mile limit seems to be settled, is the limit that we have off the west coast of Scotland? Because of the importance of our Scottish herring industry, nothing less than a 50-mile limit will do justice to the Scottish fishermen.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a later Question on the Order Paper and also a Private Notice Question on the subject, but I take note of what he said.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that I was in Brussels last week, and that it was clear that the Commission accepted 200 miles for countries in the EEC but is still suggesting 12 miles for Britain? That is quite unacceptable in Scotland. We require 50 miles at least.

Mr. Millan: With respect, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confusing two things. There is now widespread acceptance of the 200-mile limit, and progress has been made on that. The other argument, to which we attach considerable importance, concerns the exclusive zones, and on that subject the Government have already made it clear that the Commission's original proposal for 12 miles is quite unacceptable.

Mr. Sillars: Will the Secretary of State seek an early meeting with the Commission to raise the question of preferential


access for Scottish coal in European Community markets? Unless we get preferential access we may have up to 1½ million tons surplus in Scotland from 1976 onwards. If we do not do something about this within the Community there may be an enormous employment problem in the Scottish coalfields.

Mr. Millan: There is a problem in the Scottish coalfields, but I do not think it is exclusively or even mainly to do with the Community.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is there any reason why the Secretary of State should not go to Brussels to negotiate on behalf of the Scottish fishing industry? Does he not realise that such a public gesture by him would create confidence in the industry in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman will make a public gesture by offering me a pair I shall certainly consider that. On the general point, it is certainly my intention to participate in these discussions, as appropriate.

Sir John Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that fish have no relation to limits—they swim for 100 or 200 miles—and that it is essential for him to produce a policy that protects the areas in which the fish spawn? It has nothing to do with where the fish are caught. They are certainly caught within 25 miles of the Scottish coast, but the spawning areas are further away, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman should bend his attention to.

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member is making a number of points. On the general question of conservation, he will know that the Government have as one of their major aims the achievement of effective conservation policies which can be monitored to see that they are not broken by other States.

Secondary Schools (Class Size)

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the size of the average class in Scottish secondary schools in session 1974–75; what was the average class size in secondary schools in Scotland and in the Strathclyde Region, respectively, in session 1975–76; and what he expects it to be

at the beginning of the new school year in August 1976.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): The average size of classes in education authority secondary schools in Scotland in September 1974 was 20. The corresponding figure for Scotland in September 1975 was 19·6 and for Strathclyde 20·7. The average class size in August 1976 cannot be estimated at this stage.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that we are bound to be disappointed that class sizes are not falling when we are spending many thousands of pounds trying to make people literate and numerate because of their disadvantages during this terrible shortage of teachers? As we now have an opportunity to correct that imbalance, will he do his utmost to see that the teachers now leaving the training colleges are employed in schools?

Mr. MacKenzie: If the class sizes that I have just announced had existed when my hon. Friend and I were members of Glasgow City Council some years ago, we should have been very pleased. My hon. Friend has not got it quite right because we now have the best-ever teacher-pupil ratio.

Mrs. Bain: Given the high level of educational deprivation in Strathclyde Region, particularly as it was outlined in the first annual report by the regional council, does the Minister not agree that this is an opportunity for us to use the unemployed teachers to compensate in the West of Scotland for those years of educational deprivation? Will he therefore give a guarantee that the rate support grant will be increased to enable local authorities to increase the numbers of teachers?

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Lady is over-egging this pudding. I know the situation of teachers in Glasgow. As I said, we now have the best-ever teacher-pupil ratio.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Has the Minister received a copy of the report by the Scottish Association of Head Teachers, which shows that unless the Red Book standards are increased by 6 per cent. staffing in schools will fall below the


optimum level, mainly at the expense of the least academic pupils? Surely that shows that there is still a place in our schools for the qualified teachers who have not yet been taken into posts.

Mr. MacKenzie: I know that my right hon. Friend has not had an opportunity to study that document, but I do not think that we can accept all the comments made by that association.

Skimmed Milk

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost to Scottish housewives and farmers of implementing the EEC policy concerning skimmed milk; and if he will make representations to the Council of Ministers that it be rescinded.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): Any increase in farm feed costs attributable to the EEC scheme for incorporation of skimmed milk powder cannot be separately estimated, but it is a minor element in recent price movements. It has had no effect on retail food prices. The scheme is part of the continuing Community effort to achieve a better balance between production and utilisation in the milk sector.

Mr. Fairbairn: I regret to say that I find that reply rather unsatisfactory. Does the Minister regard a figure of between £7 and £10 a tonne as an insignificant amount? Does he appreciate that egg producers have to pay this amount, which often makes their egg-producing in Scotland unprofitable? Does he appreciate that if he could persuade our old allies, the French, to drink milk instead of wine, the Scots would not have to feed their hens on it?

Mr. Brown: The hon. and learned Gentleman gets carried away with his own eloquence. Since he wrote to me a month ago, his estimate of the increase has gone up from £4·50 a tonne to, as he just said, between £7 and £10 a tonne. In fact, the figure is £1·50, so he is wrong again, as he usually is.

Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite what may or may not have happened in the present situation, it is the proposals for the future that are giving us cause for anxiety—levies on

milk products, on milk itself, and on protein imports? Above all, in operating this, will he fight to preserve the two milk marketing boards in Scotland?

Mr. Brown: Yes, I can give an assurance about the milk marketing boards. Our position has been clearly stated. We have always said that we want to ensure a policy that is designed to concentrate production in those areas of the EEC, such as the United Kingdom, which are best suited to milk production. As my hon. Friend will know, the decisions on what happens after October have been postponed. There should be decisions in September.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that the scheme is simply not being effective in reducing milk powder stocks? What guarantees has he had that the scheme will end in October?

Mr. Brown: As I have said, the current scheme is due to end in October—[Interruption.] I am being asked a factual question. What I am saying is that this obviously depends on the level of production, which has been seriously affected by drought in some parts of this country and in Europe. What will take the place of the scheme after October will depend on various factors.

Bus Services (Rural Areas)

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he remains satisfied that the bus services in rural areas of Scotland are satisfactory and adequate for the needs of those not possessing or allowed to drive motor cars.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): It is for the regional and islands councils to see that bus services in their areas are adequate. Government support is made available through rate support grant.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real difficulty in subsidising railway services, whose cost falls entirely on the Exchequer, as opposed to subsidising bus fares, whose cost is shared by the local authority, and that this has the effect of subsidising city commuters rather than country dwellers? Does he think that that is an equitable arrangement?

Mr. Ewing: I do not think that that is an accurate presentation of the picture. In our view, adequate resources were made available within the rate support grant settlements in the last few years to meet the requirements of the bus operators for subsidies on these uneconomic routes. It is entirely a matter for the regional and islands councils to decide how much revenue they should spend on these facilities. That provision was embodied in the 1973 Local Government Act.

Mr. Thompson: Has the Minister any plans for moving towards standardisation, throughout Scotland, of the concessionary fares schemes for pensioners?

Mr. Ewing: That also is a matter for the local authorities. Certainly we have no plans to introduce standardised concessionary fares throughout Scotland. I well remember one of the fights in which I was involved in an attempt to get a local authority in my constituency to grant concessionary fares. Two other local authorities were giving concessions, but one was not. It has always been a question for local authorities and will continue to be so.

Mr. Buchanan: Is my hon. Friend aware that many rural communities are isolated because the provisions of the 1968 Transport Act have not been implemented under which rail services which were cut off were supposed to be replaced by bus services? Will he use his influence to see that the provisions of the Labour Party manifestos are carried out, and to seek an integrated transport service in Scotland?

Mr. Ewing: I am always impressed by simple solutions to complex problems, and there is no doubt that rural transport, in particular, is a very complex problem. I notice that no one suggests that we should gear transport to passenger demand. That is one of the greatest difficulties in deciding the level of rural transport, whether it be bus or train.

Sir J. Gilmour: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Social Work

Mr. Watt: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now transfer responsibility for social work from regional authorities to district councils; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Millan: No, Sir.

Mr. Watt: Does the Minister accept that the work of social work departments and housing authorities is indivisible and that many anomalies are creeping in? Does he agree that one of the first tasks of a Scottish Assembly will be to disband regional authorities? The sooner he gets on with the job the better.

Mr. Millan: There are problems of liaison between regional and district authorities, but at local level most of the problems can be adequately solved.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Notwithstanding what has been said about the indivisibility of social work and housing, does my right hon. Friend have any evidence that social work departments are falling down on the job?

Mr. Millan: I would not put it like that. The Morris Committee's report recommended that housing the homeless should be a function of housing authorities rather than social work authorities, and this is a problem in many areas. I do not accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend in the way he puts it.

Mr. Fairgrieve: In the light of the forthcoming Scottish Assembly, would it not be of assistance to consider fairly quickly whether the two tiers of local authority in Scotland should be replaced by one-tier all-purpose authorities?

Mr. Millan: We have made our position clear on this matter on numerous occasions. There is no question of changing the present local authority structure before the Assembly is established. Matters of that sort will thereafter be for the Assembly. It will be for the Assembly to decide whether it wants to do anything about this matter, and, if so, what.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the Secretary of State accept that social work departments provide many vital services, such as the home help service for the old and disabled? At a time of economic stringency such as we are facing, is it not imperative


to give these services priority in public expenditure rather than to abolish pay beds in Scotland or to introduce nationalisation proposals which are totally irrelevant to the welfare of the Scottish people?

Mr. Millan: That is very wide of the Question. As the hon. Gentleman will see when he gets further information about public expenditure, the expenditure of social work departments over recent years has gone up much more rapidly than has local authority expenditure generally.

School Leavers (Employment)

Mr. Gorden Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him about the availability of jobs for school leavers.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the extent of unemployment in Scotland as far as school leavers are concerned.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest assessment of the economic situation in Scotland, with particular reference to youth employment prospects.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The July unemployment figures announced yesterday include some 22,700 school leavers. The various measures announced by the Government to alleviate unemployment are particularly aimed at youth unemployment.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the disgraceful information that that answer has disclosed, does the Minister agree that the Job Creation Programme and the other economic measures that the Government have introduced have made very little impact on unemployment, particularly among young people? Does he further agree that some further massive Government effort is needed? Does he accept that, tied as Scotland is to the declining economy of the United Kingdom, unemployment must be the fate of many Scottish school leavers?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am not happy with the current level of unemployment among young people, or any other group of poeple, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the school leaver recruit-

ment subsidy scheme has created a considerable number of jobs, as has the Job Creation Programme. Taking those measures with the various other measures that the Government have introduced over the past year, it will be seen that in the present economic circumstances we are doing everything we can to sort out a difficult problem.

Mr. Hamilton: As this serious problem—which arises throughout Europe and is not just a Scottish problem—is likely to be with us for a considerable time, will the Government seriously consider a scheme of voluntary civilian national service within the social services? Would not that be better than paying unemployment and social security benefit and would it not additionally preserve the personal dignity of each person involved?

Mr. MacKenzie: The Government are at all times willing to listen to and examine any schemes that are put forward, but I genuinely believe that we have to get to the root cause of the problem. As my hon. Friend properly says, the problem is not peculiar to the United Kingdom; it is world-wide. It will be seen that with the regional development incentives, the accelerated programmes and all the other measures, we are making a contribution.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: What new measures does the Minister propose to introduce to reduce the frightening level of unemployment in Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: As I say, there is the school leaver recruitment scheme, the Job Creation Programme, accelerated investment programmes and industry schemes. These schemes take time, but they are working for the people of Scotland. To suggest that Scotland would do any better on its own is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Dempsey: The jobs that have been created by the Job Creation Programme and other measures are welcome, but does not my hon. Friend agree that they are not a permanent solution to the problem? Will he consider an extension of the provisions of additional training places so that when the upturn in the economy occurs and the world has slipped away from the trade recession, which is the cause of the present crisis, young people


with the necessary skills will be available to meet the rising demands from all over the world?

Mr. MacKenzie: During the last two and a half years, we have made considerable progress in training many young people, especially in the new technologies. The Government are sorting out inflation problems and issues of that kind, and tackling the fundamental problem of creating jobs in the newer industries, which will be to the benefit of young people.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is it not disgraceful that on this vital issue affecting Scotland the Secretary of State should shelter behind an answer of his Minister of State? Is the Secretary of State not ashamed that the unemployment figure among school leavers is nearly three times higher than it has been under any previous Government? Have not the Labour Government been in power for two and a half years? There can be no alibis. The Labour Party's policies are bankrupt. Will the Minister of State recommend his right hon. Friend to get out?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am sure that that will look very good in the Press tomorrow—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Treat it seriously.

Mr. MacKenzie: Does the hon. Gentleman want an answer? He should not make declarations of that kind. Not many days ago my right hon. Friend answered a debate on this issue very effectively from this Box. He is hiding behind no one.

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Mr. Millan: Following my meeting with the convention on 9th July I look forward to further meetings to discuss financial matters in November. I am, of course, happy to meet the convention at any time, and my Departments are in regular touch with the convention's representatives.

Mr. Monro: What is the Secretary of State's policy on local government

expenditure? How can he come to Dumfries and Galloway and criticise the region for not spending sufficient when it is already barely within its budget? How does he expect local government to reduce services without increasing unemployment? Does he realise that everyone in Scotland is saying "Come back, Willie. You made an awful mess of it, but it is a jolly sight worse now"?

Mr. Millan: For the current year, I have made it absolutely clear to the local authorities that I wish them to exercise the utmost restraint and to get as near as possible to a saving of £47 million, which is the difference between the figure on which rate support grant was based and the figure for which they have budgeted this year. I had a constructive meeting with the local authorities on 9th July on that matter.

Mr. Dalyell: At the meeting of 9th July, what exactly did Sir George Sharp say in the context of the cuts and the financial priorities that should be given to an Assembly?

Mr. Millan: I cannot remember off-hand—

Mr. Dalyell: I know exactly what he said.

Mr. Millan: Then I do not know why my hon. Friend is asking me.

Mr. Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Secretary of State's thoroughly evasive reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Economic Prospects

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the economic outlook in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: While the figures for total unemployment announced yesterday show a substantial increase, much of this is due to the registration of summer school leavers. Employment prospects for the rest of this year should be considerably enhanced by the growth in output and exports nationally. Prospects beyond that depend greatly on the continued success of the Government's policies to reduce the rate of inflation and to maintain economic recovery.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his lack of leadership and ideas in the current unemployment disaster is gaining him the reputation of being the most useless, idle and complacent Secretary of State in Scotland's history? Why does he not make way for someone who can speak and fight for Scotland and get results?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman speaks with so many voices and rides so many horses at the same time that he is like a one-man Derby. The unemployment figures are extremely serious, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment said yesterday that the Government are considering further measures, with particular reference to the young unemployed.

Mr. Sillars: Despite all the peripheral measures, such as job creation, is it not part of deliberate Government policy to create high unemployment so as to discipline the working classes? Did not the Labour Government come to power in 1974 with a pledge to create full employment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Government continue to create and use unemployment he will deservedly earn the reputation of being a member of the first Tory Labour Government in history?

Mr. Millan: That is an absolutely monstrous suggestion for the hon. Member to make. It is untrue to say that the Government are using unemployment as an instrument of policy. No one is more anxious than the Government to reduce the unemployment figures as rapidly as possible. We have taken a number of measures, such as the subsidy to school leavers, the temporary employment subsidy and the job creation programme, which have already saved about 23,000 jobs in Scotland. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment hopes to make a further statement shortly about further measures.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Employment, in reply to me yesterday, indicated that he would be making an announcement shortly? Will he tell us what representations the Scottish Office has made to the Department of Employment for specific measures to

deal with the appalling condition of Scottish unemployment?

Mr. Millan: I can tell the House that I have been closely involved in all the discussions that have taken place regarding further measures.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unemployment in Scotland, England and Wales offers the same grim prospect? Does he agree that Socialist solutions are now needed? Does he accept that they should include resisting blackmail from international bankers who want to cut public expenditure? Does he agree that cutting public expenditure will increase and not decrease unemployment? Will he assure the House that he will resist this blackmail, as to resist it is the only way out?

Mr. Millan: I agree that whether unemployment occurs in Scotland, England or Wales, it is an equally serious problem. There is a history of long-term unemployment in various parts of Scotland that is especially serious. It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, that any cuts in public expenditure are likely to have a short-term effect on reducing employment, hut it is equally true that unless we get our economic policy right the longer-term prospects for employment will be very bad.

Mr. Younger: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has now secured his reputation as the Secretary of State who has presided over the highest level of unemployment since the 1930s? What does he now think of the former Prime Minister's assurance, in the October election, that he saw no reason for unemployment to increase any further?

Mr. Millan: What the House and the hon. Gentleman must keep in mind in the present situation is the international background. Unemployment prospects are not merely a matter for the United Kingdom or for Scotland; similar problems are being faced by all the industrialised nations. However, unless we get inflation and the economy generally under control, the longer-term prospects for employment are not good. Therefore, we must principally and primarily direct our attention towards the underlying economic problems.

School Examinations (Calculators)

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will legislate to control the use of calculators in public examinations in Scottish schools.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: No, Sir. As far as the Scottish Certificate of Education examinations are concerned, it is for the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board to decide the extent to which calculators may be used.

Miss Harvie Anderson: In view of the great and increasing concern of many parents about the permissive use of calculators, which, in the words of the Scottish Examination Board,
undoubtedly gives some significance to the results
will the hon. Gentleman undertake to continue to keep this matter under close review, with the object of getting a more equitable result from examinations that are taken by children at a very early age?

Mr. MacKenzie: I take the right hon. Lady's point. The board has the matter under constant review. I am concerned that there should be any question of advantage being given to some children over others. I shall bear in mind the right hon. Lady's point.

Mr. Canavan: If we gave some of these calculators to the Tories and the SNP, is it possible that just for once they might get their sums right?

Mr. MacKenzie: Having heard the speech of the SNP representative last week on the Estimates, I think it might be worth while for the Labour Party to buy a few calculators for our opponents.

Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many teachers think that the use of calculators in examinations has been bad for education and unfair? Will he ask the board to look at the matter again?

Mr. MacKenzie: I have indicated that the board has the matter under constant review. I have quite strong views on this matter as I happen to be the parent of a youngster who is now going through examinations. I think that calculators can take a lot of the drudgery out of

the work, but we want to ensure that there is no disadvantage.

Mr. Crawford: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two of the sums that the SNP has got right is that family income in Scotland is more than 9 per cent. lower than in England and that the cost of living is more than 9 per cent. higher? In view of those figures, will the hon. Gentleman give us a categorical assurance that the public expenditure cuts that are coming will not be applied in Scotland?

Mr. MacKenzie: I think that proves the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) that we need a calculator for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the board is to scrap the use of calculators, will it give one of the surplus calculators to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan)? The hon. Gentleman will need one soon to work out whether he will save his deposit at the next election.

Mr. MacKenzie: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I should not be making any comments about anyone losing his seat.

Methil (Redundancies)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the number of redundancies due at RDL North Sea Ltd., Methil, in the next few months; and what steps he intends to take to preserve employment prospects in this community.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will be aware of the various measures that the Government have taken to ease the unemployment situation in Scotland as a whole, and these will bring benefits to areas like Methil. The full range of Government financial assistance for industry and employment is available in Fife and my officials are mindful of the need to encourage industrial development there.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that Methil already has a high rate of unemployment, has suffered tremendously as a result of the Michael pit disaster, and if RDL should close will suffer once again? Is he further aware that RDL has diversified successfully, with a first-class labour force, and is busier than ever, but that once immediate orders are


finished, and unless there is a further platform order, grave redundancies will occur? Therefore, will he press his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to use every possible avenue to press the oil companies to place platform orders much sooner than is at present anticipated?

Mr. MacKenzie: With my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, I met my hon. Friend and other Fife Members of Parliament to talk about this matter. It was clear from that meeting that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, is making every effort, as did his predecessor, to find orders for platforms.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister recall the advice of the former Secretary of Sate for Scotland—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—that if the unemployment figure in Scotland exceeded 100,000 the Secretary of State should resign? As the figure has now reached 160,000, does the present Secretary of State think that that was good or bad advice?

Mr. MacKenzie: I do not see what that supplementary question has to do with the subject of RDL at Methil.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that for purely technological reasons an order for a production platform is fairly remote? In those circumstances, will he encourage the firm to see the Minister—this has not yet happened, so far as I know—to consider the prospect of increased diversification of Norh Sea orders in inland yards?

Mr. MacKenzie: I shall pass my hon. Friend's comments to the Department of Energy. Later this week I am meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and others to talk about the problem of unemployment in Fife—a subject that is of great concern to us all.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister examine the problem of unemployment in small Scottish communities? Is he aware that in the borough of Arbroath there is an unemployment rate of 9·8 per cent.? What chance do school leavers or anybody else have when faced with high unemployment on the whole of Tayside?

When will something be done about the situation?

Mr. MacKenzie: I thought that the Question was confined to the situation Methil.

Housing Corporation

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish office of the Housing Corporation.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: My right hon. Friend would be happy to do so on a suitable occasion, but no proposal is in prospect at present.

Mr. Cook: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the view of the Government that associations sponsored by the Housing Corporation should have community links? Will he impress on the corporation the view that the management committees of such associations should represent the areas in which they are situated, and that requests from established community organisations for recognition as housing associations should receive a sympathetic response?

Mr. Brown: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, on the matter of co-operation by the Housing Corporation with district councils, I cannot anticipate what the political persuasions may be. I am happy to think that the talks undertaken by my hon. Friend with the Housing Corporation have led to a satisfactory conclusion.

List D Schools

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement about the report on the future of List D schools.

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the Social Work (Scotland) Act with reference to List D schools.

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the future responsibility for administering List D schools.

Mr. Millan: I have nothing to add at present to the reply given on 7th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook).

Mr. Canavan: Since it is now nearly two years since the Mitchell Report recommended that List D schools should be administered by regional educational authorities, is it not high time that the Government made a statement about their future? Does he not agree that it would never solve the problems of crime or the problems of education to herd all the delinquents into concentration camps and use the unemployed teachers to flog them with birches, under the leadership of the gauleiter from Cathcart?

Mr. Millan: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the earlier part of his remarks, but I hope to do so soon.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Secretary of State use this opportunity to repudiate the astonishing statement by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who, in the Scottish Grand Committee on 13th July, said that even if the money were available he did not think that it should be used for new List D schools? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Scottish Office has not yet given permission for grant to be given under Section 72 of the Children Act 1975 to allow local authorities to produce such schools in Scotland, where they are desperately needed?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong on the last part of his supplementary question. On the question of List D schools generally, we have, proportionately, a larger number of places in Scotland than can be found in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Notwithstanding the difficulty about List D schools, can my right hon. Friend arrive at a speedy decision, so that there may be a proper discussion about the future of List D schools in relation to those who may need them, as well as examining the reasons for using such schools for teaching people in the community, which is the best place in which children can be looked after?

Mr. Millan: One must examine List D schools as only a part of the provision available to children's panels. I have not yet been able to make a decision on the first point mentioned by my hon. Friend. This matter has been pending for a considerable time. I appreciate that there is concern among local autho-

rities and others at the delay in making an announcement.

Mr. Sproat: Does the Minister agree that children's panels have now become a dangerous farce and that it is absurd that no sentence can be awarded between sending offenders to List D schools and giving them a totally ineffective police warning? Should there not be powers to fine offenders heavily, if necessary, to make parents pay in order to induce some sense of family responsibility, and to put offenders on to community work?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman uses terminology that went out with the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. They are not all offenders. Many children who appear before the children's panels have not been involved in any kind of offence. The hon. Gentleman is completely inaccurate in his reference to the methods available to children's panels, since those methods are as wide as those that were available previously to the juvenile courts. Incidentally, when that Act went through this House it was supported by all parties, including the Conservative Party.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said in answer to Question No. 1 today, or to what I said 10 days ago in the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Member should await the statement to be made in reply to the Private Notice Question this afternoon.

Mr. Sproat: Is the Minister aware that that was the most shamefully empty answer that has been heard in the House for a long time? Is he further aware that, despite a welcome rise in earnings, cost have also risen so that the average vessel in the Scottish fleet will lose as much as £25,000 again this year, and the industry cannot go on losing those amounts of money for very much longer? Is he also aware that yesterday's totally indecisive meeting at Brussels has been greeted with deep dismay by the fishing industry, and that nothing less than a 50-mile limit by October will do?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman recently said that one of my answers


was the worst he had ever heard. Judging by what he said today, I am improving. As for the financial losses suffered by the Scottish Trawlers Federation, my officials met the federation last Thursday. We are giving the matter detailed consideration and we hope to inform the federation of our decision at an early date.

Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tory Party is guilty of the grossest hypocrisy, because the Tory Government sold us out completely, in fishing policy terms, by putting us into the Common Market without examining questions of protection or future markets? Secondly, is he aware that the proposals which are at present being discussed in Brussels will be totally unacceptable to the Scottish fishing industry, and that a fight must be put up for a 50-mile limit?

Mr. Brown: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, but he does no service to the Government or the fishing industry if he does not make equally clear that even with a 50-mile exclusive limit our industry would not catch the amount of fish that it now catches. Therefore, it is not simply a straightforward matter of assuming that if we go for a 50-mile limit all our problems will be solved.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister accept that both the Labour and Conservative Parties have sold out the interests of the inshore fishermen? If there is any settlement on the lines of the map published in the Scotsman 10 days ago, it will be regarded by Scottish fishermen as the grossest betrayal.

Mr. Brown: That might be all right for the Stornoway Gazette, but I replied to this question 10 days ago.

Education Standards

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has that the standard of education in Scottish schools has improved in recent years.

Mr. Millan: The evidence is a steady increase in the numbers of school leavers with SCE qualifications and in the numbers of young people entering higher education, improved staffing and better

school buildings and the reports of Her Majesty's inspectors.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that he has not answered the question about standards? Published evidence in England has shown that standards are falling seriously. Has he any reason to believe—leaving aside the granting of certificates, which have proved to be irrelevant in England—that there is any evidence to show that the situation in Scotland is any better or even any different from that in England?

Mr. Millan: I am not responsible for what happens in England and Wales, but I do not necessarily accept some of the criticisms made by the hon. Member about what is happening there. If he has any evidence of deteriorating standards in Scotland he should let me know. I cannot understand why he seems to be dismayed that we are keeping up and improving the standards of Scottish education.

Islay (Ferry Service)

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will withdraw all subsidies from the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry service to Islay.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: No, Sir.

Mr. Fairgrieve: What is the point of spending £500,000 of taxpayers' money to subsidise a service that is not necessary when private firms are operating an efficient service to Islay without having to employ taxpayers' money?

Mr. MacKenzie: If we were to withdraw the service—[Interruption.]—yes, that is what withdrawing the subsidy would amount to—it would mean an end to a service that many people regard as essential. When the Conservatives were in office they thought it right to continue the subsidy.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the Minister agree that it is rather odd that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) should raise this question? I am sure that he has never travelled by Western Ferries to Islay. He has not even cast his eye upon Early-Day Motion No. 529, which expresses the view that the best system possible would be to give both Western Ferries and Caledonian MacBrayne a subsidy for operating on this route.

Mr. MacKenzie: It comes very odd from the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) to suggest that hon. Members should not interfere in other Members' constituencies. We have experienced SNP Members wandering all over Lanarkshire interfering in other constituencies. I should have thought that their best course in this case was to keep their mouths shut.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) has constituents who ship a lot of cattle on this very important service, and therefore the subject is of interest to him. Does the Minister agree that at a time when we are having cuts in essential services it is monstrous for the Government deliberately to discriminate against a private enterprise firm which can do the job better and cheaper?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am not responsible for the fact that Western Ferries chose to compete with Caledonian MacBrayne.

ACCUSED PERSONS (ADDRESSES)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Advocate if he is aware of the practice of certain accused persons of giving their address as care of the court concerned; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I am aware of the practice, which has been in existence for a very long time. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) raised this point in correspondence earlier this year, and since then my officials have been collecting information with a view to arranging meetings with interested parties. The Committee on Criminal Procedure, under the chairmanship of Lord Thomson, recommended major changes in relation to the release of accused persons, and this is also being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself.

Mr. Taylor: Has there been any increase in this practice, and does it worry the Lord Advocate at all?

The Lord Advocate: To my knowledge there has been no increase in the practice. There are certain aspects of the practice that do worry me. For example, it does not guarantee that the accused person who is cited care of the sheriff clerk's

office will get a copy of the indictment when it is served there. There are certain advantages in the practice, but this is one of the disadvantages, which I wish to clear up.

Mr. Sillars: Do any of these cases involve the National Front, which is circulating a most scandalous piece of racialist literature in Edinburgh at the moment?

The Lord Advocate: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's party condemns the activities of this body as much as mine does. The leaflet that is being distributed in my constituency was issued by the Scottish Front, which I assume is a variation of the National Front. I have had that leaflet before my office to consider whether criminal prosecutions may arise from its distribution. Having considered the matter very carefully, I have taken advice that no basis exists for criminal prosecution in regard to the distribution of the leaflet.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Lord Advocate tell us the advantages of this method?

The Lord Advocate: The advantage of citation care of the sheriff clerk's office is that the prosecution knows with certainty where an indictment may be served. From the point of view of the accused, when he is legally represented—as he often is—the solicitor knows where to get a copy of the indictment at the earliest possible date. He then has the responsibility of making sure that the accused knows about it and receives a copy. In cases where the accused does not wish his address to to be known, this device can be used.

MRS. RACHEL ROSS (MURDER)

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Lord Advocate when he expects charges to be brought against any person for the murder of Mrs. Rachel Ross, for which Patrick Connolly Meehan was wrongly convicted; what progress he has made with his inquiries into the circumstances in which he was wrongly convicted; and when he expects any charges to be brought relative thereto.

The Lord Advocate: A thorough investigation is taking place. It has not been completed, but already considerable new evidence has come to light. In these


circumstances I regret that I cannot at present answer the Question further.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does the Lord Advocate appreciate that I do not want to rush him into an early prosecution of any person in connection with this case? Nevertheless, there having been an admission that the conviction of a person on the evidence prepared by the police was wrong, and there having been a confession in public by a man who claims to have done it, it is important that this matter should not be allowed to go to sleep.

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand if I do not go beyond my statement.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Lord Advocate publish the report of the inquiry he has carried out on this matter?

The Lord Advocate: No, Sir. It would not be appropriate for the Lord Advocate, who is also the Public Prosecutor, to publish the report he has received. The question of any further inquiry is a matter that must be resolved after any prosecution may have been dealt with.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an indication of the likely time scale of the end of the inquiry? There is a feeling among many of us who are familiar with criminal processes in Scotland that the Crown Office would like to put the matter to sleep. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in touch with the Crown Agent, and will he speak to him about the time scale?

The Lord Advocate: I repudiate the suggestion that this matter is being treated in a dilatory manner by the Crown Office. It is being pursued with the utmost vigour. Hon. Members must appreciate that this is a very difficult matter which must be investigated thoroughly.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Lord Advocate tell us whether the recent death of Mr. Abraham Ross, husband of the murdered woman, will prejudice the inquiry?

The Lord Advocate: I hope that it will not prejudice the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the death of this gentleman is an unfortunate

circumstance. Every effort was made to obtain a deposition from him before he died. As soon as we knew that Mr. Ross was in danger of dying, the procurator fiscal made arrangements to have the sheriff and the sheriff clerk in attendance at the hospital to take a dying deposition. They went to the hospital on the day Mr. Ross died, but it became clear that he could not make a statement. Arrangements were made for them to return in the evening, but by that time Mr. Ross had died.

DEBT COLLECTION

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Lord Advocate if he will refer to the Working Party of the Scottish Law Commission, under Lord Hunter, examining the Law of Diligence and Debt Collection, the problem of the separation of functions between a messenger-at-arms to the High Court, the Macer to the Lord Lyon King of Arms, and Sheriff-Officer responsible for debt collection.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will ask the Scottish Law Commission to report on the legal implication of the functions of Messenger-at-Arms to the High Court, Macer to the Lord Lyon King of Arms and Sheriff-Officer responsible for debt collection.

The Lord Advocate: I understand from the Scottish Law Commission that it is considering this question in the course of its current examination of the law and practice of diligence.
There are judicial decisions to the effect that the sheriff officer should not act as an enforcement officer in a case where he is personally interested in the debt.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Lord Advocate aware that many hon. Members are worried about the crude nature of this kind of debt collecting? When will the working party report?

The Lord Advocate: I cannot give a definite date for the report of the working party, but in relation to the question of the practice of Messengers-at-Arms and sheriff officers taking part in other related activities, the judicial decisions in question are very clear. There is no reason to suppose that the firms that carry


out this work are not complying with the law.

Mr. Canavan: Why is Thomas Gray allowed to operate as a sheriff officer and also as a private debt collector? This pillar of the Scottish legal establishment, who has an office in Stirling, is allowed to hound ordinary working people in my constituency just because they fall behind in their hire-purchase payments. It is even more disgraceful that both his brother and his partner are members of the Law Commission's working party, which was set up in 1970 and is supposed to investigate this sort of disgraceful business.

The Lord Advocate: I entirely dissociate myself from the general remarks that my hon. Friend has made on this matter. I have no reason to suppose that the firms that carry out the work in this area do not comply strictly with the requirements of the law. My hon. Friend must appreciate that the task of debt collecting is inevitably unpopular. One will get no votes by collecting debts.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (FISHERIES POLICY)

Mr. Pym: Mr. Pym (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Council of Ministers' meeting dealing with fisheries policy.

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Fisheries was one of a number of questions discussed at the July Foreign Affairs Council. Heads of State and Government meeting on 12th and 13th July had instructed Foreign Ministers to consider making a Declaration of Intent on the extension of Community fishing limits to 200 miles. Yesterday's Comcil considered a draft declaration and amended it in a number of ways.
The text which was provisionally approved committed the Community to decide the appropriates procedures for the extension of fishing limits to 200 miles by 1st October at the latest.
The declaration represents an acceptance by member States that a general extension to 200 miles is inevitable and that the Community must plan its policies in the light of these new circumstances.

Mr. Pym: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information because, following the meeting yesterday, there has been a degree of uncertainty. The Minister referred to a declaration, but I do not think that it has actually been made. If it has not been made, will he say when it will be made, and will he say when the Minister will return to the subject of fisheries policy, particularly in relation to the division of waters within the Community, which is clearly an area about which industry and all hon. Members are mostly concerned? Does he agree that the conservation regime, to be fully effective, must be enforced by each country within its own waters and not be a Community responsibility?

Mr. Hattersley: The declaration is provisional because after the decision was taken yesterday one country asked for clarification about the distinction between resources in the sea—fish —and resources on the sea bed. I have no doubt that that legal distinction can be made easily and that the provisional declaration will soon be made substantive.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me two further questions. We must proceed with great speed to decide how the waters within the common fisheries pool are divided between member States, but the extension to 200 miles and a Community declaration on that must be the first step. The fact that we made substantial progress yesterday on that issue opens the way for a faster determination of national waters within the CFP. I agree that all fisheries policies are dependent on proper conservation regimes and that those regimes can be properly policed only by the countries around whose shores the appropriate waters lie. That is our policy and that is what we shall press for.

Mr. Powell: I appreciate that the allocation of time is a matter for the Lord President. Does the Minister of State not agree, however, that it is now extremely urgent that the House should have a full-scale debate on the whole ambit of the fisheries policy, in regard both to the EEC and to the CFP within it?

Mr. Hattersley: In many ways I would welcome such a debate. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the allocation of time is a matter for my right hon. Friend.


However, I have no doubt that the policies now being pursued by Her Majesty's Government will obtain the approval of the whole House, and I think that it would strengthen our hand within the Community if we were able to say, when next we argued this case with force, as we shall, that we were supported by a unanimous House of Commons.

Mr. Prescott: I welcome the Government's conversion to the principle of unilaterally establishing a 200-mile limit in advance of a decision to that effect by the Law of the Sea Conference. May we be sure that the price for an acceptable fishing policy will not involve giving over the right to exploit mineral wealth which lies beyond the Community's waters beyond 200 miles and to the new proposed limits of the Continental Shelf?

Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend can be reassured about that. The decisions we wish to obtain in the revision and improvement of the CFP are self-evidently right and reasonable. I think that he can rely upon the Government to argue our case for improving the CFP on its own merit without feeling obliged to hand over other things in order to secure that improvement.

Mr. Grimond: The urgent and vital matter now must be the allocation of waters within the 200-mile limit. In this regard the Scottish industry demands that it must have a 50-mile limit at least. Is that the Government's policy?

Mr. Hattersley: The Government's policy is to obtain the best possible deal for the fishing industry within the revision of the CFP. It is no good hon. Members arguing with that. The hard facts are that the Government are faced with a CFP which exists in its present form, because the declaration was signed and accepted by the previous Government a few days before we entered the Community. We cannot change that situation by veto or by refusing to accept it. We can only improve it by negotiation. I agree that we have to negotiate with as much toughness, determination and speed as possible, but that is something we must do within the realities of the situation. Those realities were left to us by our predecessors.

Mr. Watt: The extension to 200 miles makes this whole matter an entirely different ball game. Is the Minister of State aware that Scottish fishermen are already so militant that they are determined that they will change the face of European politics before they will accept a sell-out by the Government?

Mr. Hattersley: I agree that the extension to 200 miles ought to change the nature of the CFP. That is what we have been arguing for in Brussels for the last two years. I only half agree with the hon. Gentleman about the Scottish fishermen. I have found them determined to obtain an improvement in the CFP to meet their needs, but I have also found them deeply reasonable, understanding of the position we are in, and enthusiastic in their support for what the Government are doing.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since my hon. Friend has asked the House to give him strong backing in his negotiations, will he bear in mind that on every occasion that we have debated fisheries there has been common agreement in the House that nothing less than 50 miles will do? It is not much good asking us to back him if he then goes to the Community and does not argue the case. Will he make it clear to the Opposition that perhaps their synthetic indignation might carry more weight if they agreed to pair in order to allow my right hon. Friend to go to conduct the negotiations?

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's final suggestion. We shall be able to test the Opposition's enthusiasm on these matters when I try to go to continue the negotiations next Tuesday. On my hon. Friend's first point, of course the Government accept that there are substantial areas of the British coast around which we need a 50-mile exclusive zone. But were we to attempt to obtain 50 miles of exclusive fishing all round the coast of the United Kingdom, I believe that the negotiations would fail, and I do not believe that we would in that way preserve the best interests of the British fishing industry.

Mr. Wall: Is the Minister of State aware that we pressed for renegotiation of the CFP before the conclusion of the referendum? Was an exclusive zone discussed at the recent talks? If not, when


will this question be discussed in Brussels?

Mr. Hattersley: I am not aware that any great pressure existed immediately before the referendum. Still less am I aware of any such pressure before the last Government signed the Treaty of Accession. That was when the pass was sold and that was when the hon. Gentleman should have exercised his wrath.

Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend regard the common fisheries policy as one of the benefits to this country of EEC membership?

Mr. Hattersley: I have always told my right hon. Friend that his speeches would have a great deal more force if he were prepared to balance the disadvantages against the advantages. I believe that we can and shall obtain substantial improvements in the policy. When those improvements are obtained, we shall at least be able to describe fisheries as one of the areas in which Community membership has been of no disadvantage to the British industry.

Mr. John Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his remarks about selling the pass are sheer hypocrisy? Is not the truth of the matter that if there were any subject that warranted renegotiation in the form in which the Government undertook it some time ago, it would have been fisheries? Does the fact that they did not so renegotiate show that the pass has not been sold, and is it not hypocrisy to pretend that it has been?

Mr. Hattersley: I understand why the right hon. Gentleman says that. In the words of a famous phrase "He would, wouldn't he?". Unfortunately, it does not correspond with the facts. The simple matter of allowing the Community access to British fishing waters, not up to 12 miles but up to the beaches in the West of Scotland, the East of England and all other parts of our coastline was determined and agreed a few days before the right hon. Gentleman's party signed the Treaty of Accession. That is when the mistake was made.

Mr. Sproat: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, while the fishing industry is opposed to the whole of his

variable limits plan, one part of that plan which must be altered before October is the 12-mile limit which we understand from a report in The Scotsman is proposed for the West Coast of Scotland? Does he realise that this would be utterly unacceptable?

Mr. Hattersley: I am aware of the plan published in The Scotsman, but I am not aware that it is the plan that the Government have put to the Community. Indeed, I told the Opposition spokesman on these matters that, while I had seen the plan, I did not endorse it as the Government's negotiating position.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not futile to apportion blame between Labour and Conservative Governments over the fiasco of the common fisheries policy since both are equally to blame? The right hon. Gentleman asks for all-party support on this issue. Is he aware that my hon. Friends and I would he prepared to give him support provided that he is prepared to say now that he will stick to 50 miles and not an inch less?

Mr. Hattersley: I agree that we need to make improvements for the future rather than recriminate about the past. We are at one on that. I hope that the House will support the Government in our determination to get the best possible deal for the British fishing industry. I also hope that all parties—those which have been in government, the party in government and those who have no conceivable prospect of being in government—will understand the realities of the situation. We have to obtain the good will and co-operation of our colleagues in the Community. The rules do not allow us to go it alone. To obtain that good will and co-operation we have to make reasonable proposals which have some chance of acceptance.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three hon. Members to put short questions before the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: In reaching agreement in principle, were any conditions applied which might prejudice the renegotiation of the common fisheries, policy within the Community?

Mr. Hattersley: No.

Mr. Brotherton: As the right hon. Gentleman is unable to assure us that he will press for a 50-mile limit, will he ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes that clear in Grimsby so that the people there will know that he is not really interested in the fishing industry on the Humber?

Mr. Hattersley: I suspect that the people of Grimsby and the surrounding areas make their own shrewd appreciation of those who represent their views and those who want to make cheap political points.

Mr. Clegg: As the Icelandic agreement runs out in December, is there not an urgent need for the common fisheries policy to be settled by early autumn if possible?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is imperative that we achieve unanimity in the Community on a general fishing policy so that a relationship with Iceland can be reached by December in order to avoid all the difficulties and embarrassments that we have suffered in the past. The Community is aware of this need and the real achievement of yesterday was that we injected some urgency into the Community's consideration of these matters. That was real progress.

HER MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR TO THE IRISH REPUBLIC (DEATH)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Hon. Members will have been shocked to hear of the explosion in Dublin this morning which wrecked the British Ambassador's car, killing the Ambassador, Mr. Christopher Ewart-Biggs, and Miss Judith Cook, a Private Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office. Mr. Brian Cubbon, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, and the driver of the car, Mr. Brian O'Driscoll, are now in hospital in Dublin. Both are seriously injured.
According to the information so fat available, the explosion was caused by a land mine planted in the road about 150 yards from the Ambassador's residence.
The Taoiseach, Mr. Liam Cosgrave, telephoned me a short while ago. He expressed his deepest sympathy and regret and that of his Government and has undertaken that every effort will be made to bring to justice those responsible for this atrocity. He reiterated the Irish Government's intention to safeguard the lives of the United Kingdom's citizens in the Republic.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is sending the Deputy Under-Secretary dealing with Irish affairs, Mr. Richard Sykes, to Dublin so that he can report back urgently on the situation.
The Queen has been informed. She was horrified to hear of this outrage and extends her sympathy to the relations of those involved. The whole House will join with me in extending our sincere sympathy to the families of those killed or injured, and our hopes for a successful recovery by Mr. Cubbon and Mr. O'Driscoll.

Mrs. Thatcher: May we join the Prime Minister in saying that we were all appalled and shocked to hear of this latest terrorist outrage? May we also join him in expressing our sympathies to the families concerned, although sympathy seems a rather inadequate word for the deep and sudden grief which is now theirs? We do not know what the terrorists hope ultimately to achieve by this senseless and brutal act, but may we make it quite clear that they will never weaken our resolve to root out terrorism by every possible means and to demonstrate to the law-abiding citizens of both our countries that the rule of law and civilised values must and will survive? May we welcome Mr. Cosgrave's determination to bring to justice those who perpetrated this crime and, to that end, will the Government seek further to intensify and co-ordinate the efforts of the two Governments and their security forces to destroy terrorism, which is our common enemy?

The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady. I echo her last words that these miserable men are the common enemies of both Governments and of all decent people who wish to live in peace and amity in our two islands. I shall be very happy, as will the Secretary of State for Northern


Ireland and the Foreign Secretary, to enter into discussions with Mr. Cosgrave at any time to enable us to intensify the arrangements for ensuring that these atrocities do not take place. I know from my own experience that very frequent security briefings are given. Mr. Ewart-Biggs, with whom a number of us had worked, had a briefing on security a short time ago. Arrangements for safe guarding the lives of our staff are constantly reviewed, but it is clear that they cannot be made perfect.
I do not believe that even the families of those involved would want us to give up our quest to bring the terrorists to justice. I do not envy these men their consciences in their and pursuit of hate. Their only hate is of the possibility that people will live freely together. When will this senseless killing stop?

Mr. David Steel: May I, on behalf of my colleagues, express our horror at these murders? On a personal note, is the Prime Minister aware that Mr. Ewart-Biggs, in his previous capacity, which he had only just left, as Minister in Paris, was held in very high regard in the diplomatic service? Those of us who enjoyed the hospitality of his home knew it as a place not only of serious discussion but of laughter and gaiety, which has now been cruelly shattered. Our thoughts must be with his wife and young family at this time, as with the relatives of the others caught in this explosion.
While I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the Irish Government bring the perpetrators of this crime to justice, does he agree that we should not be deflected from the path that Mr. Ewart-Biggs was following in bringing relations between our two countries, despite this event, closer together?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to associate myself with what the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Ewart-Biggs. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the Foreign Office had a different destination for him. I feel particularly close to this matter, because Mr. Ewart-Biggs was my own choice for Ireland. I thought that his qualities and talents would be best suited there. I saw him only a few weeks ago and he told me how much he was looking forward to this post. He is a great loss to us.
Mr. Cubbon was my Private Secretary many years ago. Therefore, I know his qualities very well. He is a man we can ill afford to spare. I very much hope that he will soon recover.
Although it is natural to say that it comes particularly close to us when those we know and have worked with suffer in this way, this is an illustration of the fact that hundreds of innocent men and women have been slaughtered on the altar of Ireland.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Northern Ireland, although they themselves have "supp'd full with horror", are not lacking in either sorrow or indignation at this event? Does he agree that this event proves that the men who do these things are not just the enemies of a section or of Northern Ireland but equally of the people of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: It is well that the right hon. Gentleman should remind us of and drive home this fact again. It is well appreciated on both sides of the border and in this country that these men are no friends of anyone. They are a common enemy whom we must destroy or be destroyed by. I cannot emphasise too much the negative attitude which characterises them, and I do not envy them their consciences.

Mr. Urwin: As a delegate to Western European Union, and perhaps on behalf of many of my colleagues who act in a similar capacity, I should like to join in the expressions of sympathy to the families of Mr. Ewart-Biggs and the other people who were involved in this terrible tragedy. Those of us who act as delegates to the WEU have reason to remember with gratitude the benefit of the wise counsels of Mr. Ewart-Biggs. I join all hon. Members who have spoken on this tremendously sorrowful occasion in hoping that the perpetrators of this outrage will quickly be brought to justice.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May a relative of Mr. Ewart-Biggs be allowed to associate himself with the tributes worthily paid on both sides of the House to the dead, the wounded, the bereaved and all who are affected by this atrocity? Is the Prime Minister aware that his words will


be deeply appreciated by the family Mr. Ewart-Biggs?
We should also remember the many victims of terrorism who do not make the headlines and press with the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for an all-out and fully co-ordinated effort to root out the common enemy of both the British and the Irish.

Mr. Amery: I should like to pay tribute to the immense contribution that Mr. Ewart-Biggs made to the improvement in relations between Britain and France. As the Prime Minister will know, he would have qualified several years ago to be an ambassador, but, with characteristic public spirit, he waived the opportunity of promotion to continue his work in Paris, for which this country owes him a great debt.

Mr. Fitt: I should like to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy by the Prime Minister to the relatives of those who have been killed and maimed. I knew Judith Cook and Brian Cubbon in the Northern Ireland Office. At all times I found them to be very helpful and anxious to try to solve the problem of Northern Ireland.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the Irish Government do not need any compelling by this Government in their attempts to eradicate terrorism from the island of Ireland? Over the past years they have shown remarkable courage in a difficult situation in trying to track down and root out from society those who are responsible for these heinous crimes.

The Prime Minister: The Government of the Republic of Ireland have certainly taken many steps to try to track down the perpetrators of this violence. I have found in both parties—indeed, in all parties—in Ireland the feeling that these men are no friends of Ireland or of its people. We should be very happy to explore with the Taoiseach and others whether any better means of co-ordination can be achieved between ourselves that would prevent the common enemy from succeeding.

Mr. Kilfedder: The people of Northern Ireland will certainly wish their sym-

pathy to be fully expressed in the House, of especially as they have suffered for seven long years from obscene violence in Northern Ireland. In view of this appalling outrage, deliberately and callously directed against the person of the Queen's representative in Dublin and his officials, will the Prime Minister now put a stop to the talks that have been going on between British officials and the Provisional IRA and the political wing of the Provisional Sinn Fein?

The Prime Minister: I must rely upon advice in this matter. I am told that no talks have been going on with the Provisional IRA.

Mr. Kilfedder: Or with Sinn Fein?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman identified at least two groups, beginning with the Provisional IRA. Therefore, I repeat, unless he wishes to withdraw, that there have been no talks with the Provisional IRA. I assume that he accepts what I say about that.
As regards the Provisional Sinn Fein, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the position clear on a number of occasions, most recently in reply to Questions. I have nothing to add to what he said.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is obvious that the whole House is deeply moved. I shall call a handful of Members, but they will bear in mind that they are speaking to a House already deeply moved.

Mr. Kershaw: Does the Prime Minister agree that the size of this explosion indicates that the preparations might possibly, with due vigilance, have been discovered? Is he satisfied with the degree of security that is afforded to our Ambassador in Dublin and to the Irish Ambassador here?

The Prime Minister: I cannot yet comment on the explosion or on whether it could have been averted. I know from personal experience of my last visit to the embassy in Dublin that there are considerable precautions. I should prefer to go into that matter further. The Irish Ambassador here is accorded what we hope is appropriate security.
We all recognise that men and women in public life and who are the servants of their country cannot be totally protected. It is a risk that many politicians in Northern Ireland have assumed, and I admire their bravery and fortitude in facing it.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister agree that, whichever party is in Government, when tragedy overtakes our representatives overseas, the subsequent conduct of the Treasury is all too often in marked contrast to the views expressed in this Chamber? I have in mind the assassination of the late Sir Richard Sharpies and the house imprisonment of Sir Humphrey Gibbs. Will he ensure that no such marked contrast occurs in this particular tragedy?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to be drawn into analogies with either the late Sir Richard Sharpies or Sir Humphrey Gibbs. I have looked into at least one of those two cases. I do not think that they are on all fours in any way. I have already informed Mrs. Ewart-Biggs and Mrs. Cubbon that I have asked that every arrangement should be made to facilitate their comfort and present arrangements.

Mr. Blaker: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women of the Foreign and Commonwealth Service? Is it not clear that in modern circumstances their conditions abroad are more hazardous than in the past, bearing in mind the kidnapping of the British Ambassador in Uruguay, the recent expulsions of the British diplomats from Uganda, and now this terrible tragedy? Does the Prime Minister agree that it is remarkable how they continue to display outstanding devotion and skill in the performance of their duties?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I need add to those words. There is a great deal of devotion to duty by the members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Service, as I have discovered. They display a great deal of enthusiasm for their work, which is not always done on what is traditionally regarded as the cocktail circuit. Many of them do an excellent job for this country in many ways, especially in the promotion of trade. However, I do not think that this is the occasion when I should go further into those matters.

Mr. Churchill: I associate myself in the fullest measure with everything that the Prime Minister said. Is the Prime Minister aware that all the people of this country wish to see the Government pursue with a new vigour and determination, in conjunction with the Government of the Irish Republic, the forces of terrorism, so that a victory may be gained over them?

The Prime Minister: Yes. However, I do not want to hold out false hopes that more intensive attitudes may be pursued than have been pursued so far. It is a case of maintaining the pressure and keeping up the vigilance. I know of no methods which should be adopted but which have so far been left untried.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that from my beautiful constituency of Argyll we may see Antrim in Northern Ireland and Donegal in Southern Ireland? We welcome the people from both of those places to my constituency of Argyll. We hope and pray that the people of Ireland will realise that they should be like the people of Scotland and try, whatever their political or religious differences, to work together for the future.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (PATERNITY LEAVE)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit fathers to be absent from work due to the pregnancy or confinement of their wives without loss of pay or holiday entitlement.
This Bill seeks to permit fathers to be absent from work, due to the pregnancy or confinement of their wives, without loss of pay or holiday entitlement, in a way that already exists in a number of European and other countries.
On 1st April 1977, thanks to the Employment Protection Act, maternity pay will become available to all working mothers for a period of up to six weeks and at a rate of nine-tenths of their normal pay minus maximum statutory benefits. At the same time, there is no provision for fathers to be allowed time off to be with their wives, either when wives are in labour or are confined, or afterwards when they come home with their babies. The Bill seeks to give fathers up to three days' leave within 28 days of the wife's confinement.
The present situation is that salaried employees who have decent and kindly employers often receive this leave without their pay or holidays being affected. Hourly-paid workers seldom receive such benefits. Strangely enough, the people who suffer are not the fathers but the mothers, who wish to have the fathers with them when they are in labour, while the child is being born, or when the child comes home. If the father wants to be with the mother or child, he must forfeit pay or his holiday, and he must do so at a time when his pay is most needed.
We have no arrangement to grant paternity leave, although the cost to the employers would be absolutely minimal. It would amount to perhaps about two and a half weeks' pay in a man's working life.
Paternity leave already exists in many European countries. In Belgium, a father is allowed two days off within 12 days of the confinement. In France, he is allowed three days within 15 days of the confinement. There is no statutory

provision in West Germany. However, most collective agreements in nearly all industries grant up to two days' paternity leave. In Luxembourg, the period is two days. In Norway, there is a current proposal that husbands of working wives should be entitled to between two and four weeks' child-care leave during the first year of the baby's life.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know of the position in Sweden as we were both there for discussions a short time ago. Sweden is well in advance of us in many ways. Swedes are entitled to 10 days' paternity leave and, since 1st January 1974, postnatal leave of up to seven months for either the father or the mother, or both alternately. I ask for no such alternate leave. I ask for no arrangements under which there would be months off. I merely ask for the brief period of a few days so that the father and the mother may be together at a time which is of the greatest importance to the family, to the father, to the mother and to the child.
The present system is inequitable and unreasonable. The provision of maternity pay and the absence of paternity pay provide a further example of the way in which men are becoming progressively less equal than women. This modest reform, which I ask leave of the House to introduce, would be an indication that the House recognises that men, too, have rights, not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of their working wives.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mrs. Barbara Castle, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mrs. Renée Short, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Ms Maureen Colquhoun, Miss Joan Maynard, Miss Jo Richardson, and Mr. Ronald Atkins.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (PATERNITY LEAVE)

Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to permit fathers to be absent from work due to the pregnancy or confinement of their wives without loss of pay or holiday entitlement: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15th October and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [1st July] proposed on consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

New Clause 40

EARLY ENTRY TO FURTHER EDUCATION

'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9 of the Education Act 1962, where a person attains the age of 16 years on any date after the 1st September, he shall be free to leave his school provided he has been accepted for entry for the term following that date to a full-time course in further education'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

4.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): I was on my feet when the debate on this Bill was last adjourned. The briefness of my speech on that occasion was a record.
I might point out that Hansard was not strictly correct. It quoted me as saying "Mr. Speaker" when I said "Mr. Deputy Speaker". Hansard thereby shortened my speech by one-third. At that point the Ten o'clock rule intervened.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) proposed a group of new clauses dealing with early entry to further education and with other reasons for exempting children from the normal provisions of the law on compulsory school attendance. I am afraid that we must resist all those new clauses. Many of them are, in my view, singularly ill-thought-out.
I am a little disturbed to find that the hon. Member for Chelmsford should be seeking in this series of new clauses which, if he will forgive me for saying so, he moved with an apparent lack of understanding of their content, to sabotage the measure taken my his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when the school-leaving age was fixed at its present level.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are faced with a situation in which the Vote Office is unable to supply copies of the timetable motion passed yesterday. I have been in a queue of hon. Members seeking to obtain copies so that we may be precisely clear about its terms. It is not available in printed form. The copies supplied yesterday have run out, apparently. Can anything be done to put copies into the hands of hon. Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): There are copies available in the House, but I shall see that the information is conveyed to the appropriate quarters.

Mr. Fowler: It may be of advantage to and for the convenience of the House if I say that the terms of the motion passed yesterday were that the Report stage should continue until 10.30 and the Third Reading thereafter until midnight. I assume that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is aware of that.
Perhaps I may now deal briefly with the new clauses, though I understand that the Opposition do not intend to press them. The first, New Clause 40, provides:
… where a person attains the age of 16 years on any date after the 1st September, he shall be free to leave his school provided he has been accepted for entry for the term follow-that date to a full-time course in further education.
I accept happily that there is an argument about whether for some children the further education system would make better provision than the school system at a given age. That is an unresolved argument, and it is one on which we should not put too much weight. There are many children who are out-with the present provision and competence of the FE system quite as much as they are out-with the present provision and competence of the school system.
Furthermore, this new clause, like many of the others, has a serious technical deficiency. The clauses provide that a child may leave school, in effect, on his birthday, provided that it falls after 1st September, provided that he has been accepted for a course beginning the following term. The Opposition have not told us what happens in the interim.
There could be a gap here of as long as four months. If we assume that a child has a birthday on 2nd September, we have to assume, according to the terms of the new clause, that he could be outside education for September, October, November and December, provided that he has been accepted for a place in a further education college the following January. The same weakness applies to New Clause 41 with regard to apprenticeships, New Clause 42 with regard to skilled training and, of course, conspicuously, with regard to New Clause 43.
I am unable to comprehend the meaning of New Clause 43, which says:
… where a person attains the age of 16 years on any date after the 1st September, he shall be free to leave his school provided he has been accepted for entry for the term following that date into Her Majesty's armed forces.
This is the first I knew that Her Majesty's Armed Forces operated on a term basis. I am sure that that must be an error of drafting. As so frequently happens with amendments and new clauses put down by the Opposition, despite the fact that the Bill began its progress on 4th February, we see conspicuous evidence of hasty and ill-thought-out drafting. I must ask the House to reject all these new clauses.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: With the leave of the House, may I sum up briefly the case put by the Opposition on these clauses? Since I was the only Opposition speaker in the debate, it should not take me too long to sum up the views expressed from the Opposition Front Bench.
I want to reassert the position taken by the Opposition, which is that we stand by the commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when she was in office at the Department of Education and Science —a period which by common consent is now referred to as "The Glorious Reign"—when she succeeded after many years of endeavour in being the Secretary of State who raised the school leaving age to 16.
There can be no question of the Opposition going back on that commitment in principle. At the same time, we

are not dogmatic in our approach to this problem. We believe that it is possible to preserve the principle and, in effect, to be more flexible in practice.
We have given three examples. The first is that there should be a possibility of continuing education at a college of further education. To the extent that I followed what the Minister of State said, I gather that he did not reject that out of hand, but thought that it was worthy of consideration. The second exception which we have suggested is in the case of an apprenticeship—that a person who has not yet reached the age of 16 should be free to leave school, provided that there has been acceptance for entry for the term following that date to a full-time approved apprenticeship. The third exception which we propose in order to make this more flexible is that, where a person has attained the age of 16 years, he shall be free to leave his school, provided that he has been accepted for entry for the term following that date into Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
These three exceptions are joined together by a common principle. In each case education is continuing, and we do not equate education with actual attendance at school. Provided that education is going on, and provided that education is on a reasonably full-time basis, we see no reason why there should not be a degree of flexibility introduced into the application of the law.
We know that the Armed Services provide excellent educational courses, and they are willing to undertake this responsibility. I am sure that I am not alone in saying that for many people the best education that they ever received was in Her Majesty's Forces—and I am not referring only to the academic instruction with which they were provided.
There are other matters which we might consider, although they are not the subject of new clauses here. It has been suggested—and the suggestion has been supported by no less an authority than the late Lord Crowther—that there should be a dispensing power. In that education report, he suggested that it should be a dispensing power in the hands of the local authority. I believe that that is not generally accepted today. But it is worth considering, though it is not the official policy of the Opposition,


that there should be a dispensing power in the headmaster so that, with the consent of the parent, the headmaster could give an authority for the child to leave school in special circumstances.
That needs to be considered further, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that a dispensing power is at any rate preferable to a suspending power. I believe that I made a brief reference to the historical situation when we last discussed this matter when I pointed out that His Majesty James II lost his throne when he used the suspending power, but kept it when he used the dispensing power. There is a moral there for moderation.

Sir George Sinclair: May I hark back for a moment to what my hon. Friend said about education in the Services? In recent years, many of us have welcomed the continuity of education provided in the Services and the growing use of university courses for people required by the Services to do with all their complications of technology and command. This is not just for the narrow age grade of 14 onwards. It is a continuing programme of education which is now provided within our Armed Services.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. All his interventions are enlightening, constructive and helpful. I only regret that he has had to announce the sad news that he will not be recontesting his seat at the next General Election. That will be a great loss to education in the House. Meanwhile, I hope that in the time that he has left to him—which I understand from a conversation with the Prime Minister is likely to be short—he will redouble his efforts in the cause of education.
The Minister of State, who is not strong on technical matters, expressed some difficulty in understanding the wording in the new clauses.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I have some difficulty in understanding the new clauses. I join in the tribute that the hon. Gentleman has paid to the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair). As a former Minister for the Army, I endorse what he has said about education in the

Services. I thought that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was winding up the debate but, although I do not challenge his right to speak twice, it appears that he is reopening the argument.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, I am not. I obtained the leave of the House. One has to be punctilious in these matters and if I was out of order, I should have been told so by the Chair.
I do not propose to repeat myself. I was trying to make the same points in different language. I am merely summing up the arguments that I made before, but using different words. I was saying that we are not wedded to a particular form of language here. These are probing new clauses and we do not intend to press them to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 45

SCHOOLS COUNCIL

The Schools Council shall be discontinued from the date of the passing of this Act.—[Mr. Macfarlane.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Neil Macfarlane: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am moving the clause to give the House an opportunity to consider the work of the Schools Council, its terms of reference and composition. I contend, as do others on this side of the House, that the Schools Council is unwieldy and totally unrepresentative of a large body of educational opinion in the country. The abolition of the council would give the Secretary of State and the House the opportunity to replace it with an advisory body in which all educational interests could be adequately and equally represented.
It is essential that the House should debate the clause, consider the terms of reference of the council and, particularly at this critical time, its work, because its recent pronouncement about combining the CSE and GCE examinations is yet another attack on our standards of education.
I shall first deal with the composition of the council and show the House how, by its nature, it can be nothing but unwieldy. A study of the council's actions shows that it makes decisions piecemeal, presumably because of its size. What other reason can there be for a group of responsible people with a deep interest in education doing several undesirable things in the last 12 months? They have suggested changing the form of the 16-plus school-leaving examinations before decisions have been taken about the sixth-form examination to which the proposed 16-plus examinations are, in many cases, leading. Second, they rushed out proposals for changing the present 16-plus school-leaving examinations and organised it so badly that teachers had insufficient time to discuss those proposals and to comment on them much in advance of the meeting held on 8th July.
Among the quotations and comments by many of the large unions involving teachers, schoolmasters, school mistresses include those of the Association of Assistant Mistresses—an organisation of over 37,000 women teachers mainly working in the secondary school sector and who prepare candidates for the CSE and GCE examinations. It said in its comments on the report of the Schools Council's Joint Examination Sub-Committee:
We are, however, concerned that the problems of distribution of the report were such as to curtail seriously the opportunity for teachers to read thoroughly and discuss knowledgeably the issues involved. We also regret that Examining Boards who had made syllabuses, examination schemes and reports of feasibility studies available did not give them sufficient publicity to interested teachers who would have wished to see them.
The Assistant Masters' Association says in its comments:
The Association has been severely handicapped in this consultative process by the long interval of time between the publication of the report in September and the arrival of copies in schools—many schools had not received their copy by the end of November, many members did not have the opportunity to study the full report until January.
The Association reiterates the view expressed to the Governing Council at its meeting in January that insufficient time has been allowed for a detailed consideration of the full report, as distinct from the simple statement of the Sub-Committee's recommendations.

The National Association of Schoolmasters and the Union of Women Teachers say:
The timetable for the introduction of the system in 1981 is regarded as unrealistic. Setting up the machinery will take several years and then the schools will need to have the syllabuses for the new examinations at least three years before the first examinations can be taken.
What an indictment that is of the organising ability and powers of forethought of the council which is responsible for the co-ordination of the GCE and CSE examinations and which in the words of the Secretary of State for Education:
keeps the monitoring and maintenance of standards under review".
The third extraordinary action by the Joint Examinations Sub-Committee was to suggest 1981 as the proposed date for starting this new examination when its own working party on administration was not able to make a recommendation about the administrative structure.
The Association of Assistant Masters says that:
an administrative structure which will be acceptable to teachers and the Secretary of State must be formulated well in advance of any decision to introduce a common system of examining.
The National Association of Schoolmasters and the Union of Women Teachers say:
We do not see how the Secretary of State can be expected to make a reasoned decision about the proposed single system in the absence of a firm recommendation from the Schools Council about the administrative structure of the new system.
How can the Council expect anyone to take its recommendations seriously when it is so obviously incapable of organising its own thoughts and priorities on these vital issues? The Association of Assistant Masters, for instance, makes it clear that it considers that much more experimental work needs to be done on the whole question before it can be considered. Surely, the Schools Council should have realised that.
One of the disturbing thoughts about the entire backcloth is that the council seems to be under the impression that it will be doing a great service to the nation if it rushes us all into change. I shall deal later with the amounts of public money it has spent in the past year.
4.30 p.m.
The council has rushed out a report by the Examinations Sub-Committee suggesting a fundamental change in the school-leaving examinations, a report so ill prepared that all the following organisations have opposed it or expressed grave reservations about its implementation in the next five or six years: the Assistant Masters Association, the Society of Education Officers, the Association for Science Education, the Oxford Local Examinations Board, the Joint Matriculation Board, the London Universities Joint Examination Board, the Association of Colleges of Further and Higher Education, the Association of Principals of Colleges, the London University Examining Board, the CBI and—of all things —the Headmasters Association.
I bring to the attention of the House with some concern the comment of a spokesman for the council to the Daily Telegraph's education correspondent, reported on 9th April last year. Having said that all comments for and against the examinations were being carefully analysed, he said:
Not all comments carry equal weight and not all are based on a true reading of the report. The decision on what submission, if any, to make to the Secretary of State for Education is that of the governing council on July 8th.
Why do not all comments carry equal weight? Who has instructed the council to take more notice of one body than another? Which ones does the schools council consider unimportant—the Headmasters Association, the Association of Colleges of Further and Higher Education, the CBI, or perhaps the existing examining boards? Which bodies will be held to have the greatest influence—the National Union of Teachers or the TUC?
So far I have demonstrated that when it has the bit between its teeth the Schools Council has a tendency to gallop away unchecked, with the Secretary of State an uneasy rider. I shall take a few minutes to show how this came about, because it is one of the basic weaknesses in the Schools Council's composition. The Governing Council is composed of a chairman, appointed by the Secretary of State, and 77 members, of whom a majorrity must be teachers. In fact, 41 are teachers. No fewer than 17 of them are representatives of one teachers' union,

the NUT. They can outvote all the other teacher unions put together. Six other teachers' unions can muster only 16 votes between them. The nearest in number to the NUT is the National Association of Schoolmasters, which has four.
I am certain that the Secretary of State, with his predictable diligence in reading The Times Educational Supplement, will recognise the statement which that excellent journal produced in May:
Yet the NUT's dominance could be questioned. They are by far the largest of the teachers' unions, but a good two-thirds of their 220,000 members are in the primary schools and can have little more than a general interest in the secondary exams. Four of the National Union of Teachers' 17 Schools Council governors are primary teachers or heads, and the reason they are there is that the Council is responsible for curriculum developments in all schools, Mr. Sam Fisher, an NUT Executive member and a Council governor, was quick to point out earlier this week. He added that the bulk of the Council's work normally concerned the curriculum. It just happened to be that exams would be the centre of attention this year.
The main consideration of the School Council in its deliberations over the past 12 months has been secondary examination investigation. Why is it that the NUT has 17 members, of which four come from the primary sector, while the headmasters' unions together have only eight representatives?
What is even more significant is that all the O-level examining boards have only one representative between them, as do all the CSE boards. The combined voices of the TUC and CBI carry equal weight with the examining boards. They, too, have only one representative each. How can that be justified compared with the 17 votes of the NUT and the 33 votes of all the teachers' associations combined? Yet that is the composition of the Governing Council, which is currently examining the 16-plus leaving examinations and which has made recommendations to the Secretary of State. It has made two recommendations since 1972, both of which have been accepted and implemented.
Is it a foregone conclusion, then, that the Secretary of State is bound to accept the council's recommendations automatically? It would appear that that is how it seems to the chairman of the council. Shortly after that infamous meeting on


8th July, the chairman, Sir Alex Smith, said that at least five years' preparatory work would have to be undertaken after Mr. Mulley gave his consent to the new examination. That seems to confirm that he considers the Secretary of State to be totally malleable and that any recommendation his council may make will automatically be accepted.
We on this side of the House want to be reassured that the Secretary of State will not automatically accept the council's recommendations. The worst aspect of a single examination at 16-plus is that we shall have teacher-controlled examinations and an inevitable disparity of standards. The proposal is a body blow to education, made even more alarming by the fact that Sir Alex evidently arrogantly considers that the Secretary of State is his council's lackey.

Mr. Bryan Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that teacher control over examinations is to be greatly feared, I take it that he intends to translate that principle into the university sector. Has he taken soundings on the extent to which university teachers would welcome the intrusion of non-academics into the control and development of their examination system?

Mr. Macfarlane: I shall come on to that, because it is an important and valid point which goes to the heart of the balance of this argument.
When I asked the Secretary of State in May whether he was satisfied that the examining boards were adequately represented on the Schools Council, he replied through the Under-Secretary that:
All the boards are represented individually on the GCE O-level and CSE sub-committees."—[Official Report, 5th May 1976; Vol. 910, c. 389.]
But let us look at the composition of the important Curriculum Steering Committee B, which deals with curricula and examinations for pupils in the age range from 11 to 16. One of its functions is to act as central co-ordination authority
for the administration of examinations normally taken by pupils on attaining the age of 16.
It also makes
recommendations to the Governing Council on matters of examinations policy.

The committee has 31 members, of which the NUT has six. The other assistant teachers' associations have six between them, and the examining boards have only two. That means that the NUT has 19 per cent. representation and the O-level boards together have only 6 per cent. The CSE boards together also have only 6 per cent. The balance of the committee cannot be in the best interests of education.
Curriculum Steering Committee C broadly similar in its terms of reference to Committee B, except that its responsibility is to pupils of 14 and upwards. On that committee the NUT has six members, a 16 per cent. representation, compared with one for the GCE boards, which is a 3 per cent. representation. The CSE boards also have only one member. It is interesting to note that the CSE boards, which are not responsible for the very important university entrance examinations, have equal representation with the GCE boards, which are. But both together carry little weight in comparison with the one teachers' union, the NUT.
How can this excessive representation be justified? Surely numerical considerations alone are insufficient criteria for determining the representation of various areas of education. The NUT is always grossly over-represented in the Schools Council at the expense of headmasters and examining boards.
I turn now to the financing arrangements for the Schools Council. I am sure that the House will understand that it is jointly financed by the local education authorities and the Secretary of State, with a certain modicum of income from its own commercial activities. But the cost to our constituents is approaching £3 million. Almost £1½ million of that is paid by the Department of the Environment on behalf of local authorities out of their rate support grant which would otherwise have been received by them for education within their own area. This does not amount to a great deal of money for each individual local education authority, but even so I wonder whether all these LEAs which have to support the Schools Council, whether they like it or not, think that the money is well spent or would not rather have it to spend on their own schools. Interestingly enough, support for the present


financial year has not yet been agreed to, and this may mean that our new clause is being more than understood by the Government.
The Schools Council is a mammoth. It is too big and has too little common sense to survive in the 1970s. It rushes into action in situations where forethought and prudence would have counselled caution. It is overburdened with representatives from one area of education and grossly deficient in representatives from others. It has now begun to undermine our educational standards, as can be seen by the ill-considered decision of 8th July. The marriage of Romeo and Juliet was described as
too rash, too ill-advised, too sudden.
I think that that would be an adequate description of this proposed shotgun alliance between the 16-plus leaving examinations.
Another cause for concern was highlighted by Mr. Hugh Sykes Davies, of St. John's College, Cambridge, in a letter to The Times in October 1975. He drew attention to the unhappy problem of school leavers being unemployable because their education had not fitted them for employment. He also pointed out that The Times had reported earlier that week that Britain's professional bodies were calling for measures to improve literacy in school. He said:
For these complaints, and for the unemployment they represent, there can be no hope of remedy so long as no recognised channel exists through which they might be presented to the body responsible for the aims and methods of education, the Schools Council.
This body was set up with the declared principle that on the council itself, and on its myriad committees, sub-committees, 'steering' committees, 'working' parties, conferences and seminars, school teachers must always command a clear majority. For more than a decade they have enjoyed to the full an educational monopoly.
But unlike most officially constituted monopolies, this one has never been made in any way accountable to the needs and opinions of those who consume its products.
I think that that letter highlights an area of widespread concern—and the Schools Council has in recent years done nothing to allay the fears of a large body of opinion, especially those most concerned with employing school leavers.
It is fair to say that the council has done useful work on the curriculum over

the years, but there is little doubt that its reputation at this moment is somewhat tarnished. The only course left is for this Government or a future Conservative Government to discontinue it. It could then be replaced by a body which would effectively and equally represent all the bodies involved and not be dependent on built-in teacher control all the time.
We shall listen with interest and apprehension to the observations of the Under-Secretary of State. I hope that we shall hear her say that the Secretary of State is not Sir Alex Smith's man but the custodian of the nation's educational standards, that his judgment on the recommendations and excessive influence of the Schools Council is far-seeing, and that he will therefore reject its current proposals for a single examination at 16-plus.

4.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I am happy to give the House some part of the assurance for which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) has asked. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is no man's puppet, and he will take his own decision on the proposals of the Schools Council after he has studied them with the greatest attention. I wish that I could be sure that the same could be said for everyone who will contribute to this debate and to those we shall have on the subject in the future.
The hon. Gentleman has been a little unfair to the Schools Council. He seems to be laying all the faults of our education system at its door. Indeed, anyone who was not as well-informed as he clearly is about the composition and setup of the Schools Council might upon reading his speech conclude that the function of running our education service rested with the Schools Council rather than with my Department and the local authorities. Perhaps he has laid too much emphasis on that sort of comment.
The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he wanted to examine the terms of reference of the Schools Council, but it seemed to me that he did not do so. It occurs to me, perhaps unkindly, that if one reads those terms of reference one finds that they justify the work that has been carried out. Its object is
… the promotion of education by carrying out research into and keeping under review


the curricula, teaching methods and examinations in schools, including the organisation of schools so far as it affects their curricula".
In other words, whatever the merits of proposals which the Schools Council puts forward, it is very much its purpose to examine our education system and to put forwards proposals to the Secretary of State if it feels that it is in some way lacking. That is why it exists.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated almost totally on this one aspect of the Schools Council's work—indeed, not only on one aspect but almost on one proposal alone. He was a little hard on the Schools Council, which has been in existence for 10 years.

Mr. St. John-Stelas: It was set up in 1964.

Miss Jackson: Then it has been in existence for over 10 years. To conclude suddenly that it should be abolished because one has reservations, as the hon. Gentleman has, about a proposal that it has recently submitted to the Secretary of State is going a little far. The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's argument seemed to be, "We dislike this proposal; we do not merely have reservations but are completely opposed to it and therefore we should abolish the body that has put it forward." The hon. Gentleman seemed to find nothing in the proposal of which he could speak with approval. But that attitude involves drawing a rather large and sweeping conclusion from a fairly small basis of argument.

Dr. Keith Hampson: It would be unfair to my hon. Friend if what the hon. Lady has said were left on the record uncontradicted. My hon. Friend made it clear that he was objecting to the size and nature of the Schools Council, which has resulted in the mishandling of the question of the school-leaving examination.

Miss Jackson: That did not seem to be the argument which the hon. Gentleman was putting forward. It seemed to me that he was arguing that the proposal was defective, that it had been mishandled, and that therefore there was something wrong with the Schools Council.

Mr. Macfarlane: Minor conversations were going on around the hon. Lady

between the Secretary of State and the Minister of State at the outset of my speech. I quoted from a series of associations of school teachers, and I highlighted the arguments they had presented which proved unfailingly that they were very concerned and had grave reservations about the proposal and the time they had had to consider the arrangements suggested by the Schools Council. Those are not my words. I quoted freely from half a dozen different teacher journals.

Miss Jackson: I accept that it is not only the hon. Gentleman who has put forward an argument of reservation about the proposals. Nevertheless, it has not come to my cars that these bodies are proposing the abolition of the Schools Council as part of their opposition to these examination proposals. If, however, I am incorrect, I am sure that someone will inform me during the course of the debate.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam dwelt at some length on the composition of the Schools Council. Of course, that is not something which is preserved in aspic to stay for ever. The composition of the council can be flexible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I am surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen saying "Ah! "in that astonishing way since on the 8th July at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman has already referred, the Schools Council itself decided, as is its right, to review its own composition and to consider whether its composition was entirely satisfactory. I am sorry that that has not reached the ears of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but perhaps it will cause them to have some concern about strength of their own comments.

Mr. Macfarlane: Before the hon. Lady leaves that point, may I say that we are all aware of what took place on 8th July when the vote was 57 to 6—

Miss Jackson: Not all your hon. Friends.

Mr. Macfarlane: We are all aware of what took place, but the majority of that 57 had grave reservations over the plan for the next five years. I would draw the hon. Lady's attention to the remark


made by a spokesman of the Schools Council who said:
Not all comments carry equal weight".
Why do they not carry equal weight?

Miss Jackson: I am happy to proceed through the hon. Gentleman's argument. The point he makes is a separate issue. I merely observe that some of his colleagues did not seem to be aware that the Schools Council itself, at the same meeting, decided that it ought to review its own composition and to reconsider whether it was entirely satisfactory. Equally, at that meeting, it considered the proposals which have now been put forward to my right hon. Friend.
I ought to point out that it is the contention of the Schools Council that although bodies have expressed a variety of reservations about the timing and contents of the examination proposals, a very small number indeed submitted observations which indicated that they are opposed root and branch to such a change in the examination system. Rather genuine criticisms, as is inevitable, about the details of the proposals were put forward. I am not sure that is either understood or accepted by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Before the hon. Lady sweeps on, I would point out that the expression of amazement from this side of the House was not due to any lack of knowledge of what the Schools Council had proposed. The amazement was because the Government have apparently indicated at last a willingness to do something about it. We were so astonished because, in the educational field, all that we have seen is the obsession, the King Charles's head, of imposing comprehensive schools everywhere. We were not only astonished but we were delighted to find that the hon. Lady, who is less at fault than her colleagues because she has been a shorter time at the Ministry, is blazing away and trying to get to grips with these other problems of education and is getting away from the obsession in respect of imposing comprehensive schools irrespective of the local conditions, the financial resources, or parental wishes.

Miss Jackson: I will not bother to go over the ground which the hon. Gentleman invariably manages to drag into every question and response in these debates. I would merely observe that I thought that I had made it clear that the Schools Council, within its own remit, is reviewing its composition. It is not for me or my right hon. Friend to seek to impose such a review on it.
I was asked why I thought the spokesman for the Schools Council said, to the correspondent of the Daily Telegraph I think it was, that not all comments would carry equal weight. Why he made such an observation I would not know. As to what he may have meant by it, it seems to me that it is not such an outrageously new proposition that not every comment on a single proposal carries equal weight. I have had, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has had, in my capacity as an ordinary Member of Parliament, as well as a Minister at the Department, comments about these proposals, and indeed about other matters, along the lines, "I have read such-and-such an article in a national newspaper, which says that the Government will do so-and-so. I am violently opposed to that." Sometimes such letters show a total unfamiliarity with the actual content of the proposals. I have to admit —perhaps it comes as a revelation to the hon. Gentleman—that I have from time to time given greater weight to letters whose authors appear to have read the documents involved and seriously considered the arguments. If that is a new concept, then I am afraid there is no hope for us.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also dwelt at very great length on all the reservations that people have about the proposals put forward. He did not, apart from a cursory acknowledging sentence, touch at all on the other aspects of the work of the Schools Council. He did not mention its work with the GCE and CSE boards on examinations in general or its co-ordinating rôle between the boards. No mention was made of the role of monitoring national standards which may exist between the boards.
The hon. Gentleman made a comment about teacher control of examinations,


suggesting that there was a wide disparity of standards. I think that in any examination there are different syllabuses and different methods perhaps, in different parts of the country. There are bound to be some disparities of standards in the system that we have now.
I do not seek to argue that it follows that something else would be better than this system that we have now, or that what we have now is totally satisfactory. What disturbed me most of all was that the tremendous amount of work that the Schools Council has done in curricula research and development has been ignored in this part of the debate, and I would be very distressed if it were to be ignored totally throughout the rest of the debate, as I fear it may be.
The Schools Council has been working in an advisory capacity to schools just as it has produced work in an advisory capacity for the Secretary of State on many aspects of the curricula and many different subjects for some years now. That has been very valuable. It has now turned its attention even more strongly not merely to the production of this work but to its dissemination in schools and to getting feedback from schools about what material is of most help and how effective and helpful it is for teachers. That is a very high proportion, perhaps a major proportion, of the Schools Council's work.
It seems to me to be quite extraordinary, because a particular proposal is disliked in total, or because one has reservations about the details of a particular proposal, that it should be argued, even if only as a way of raising the subject on the Order Paper, that we should abolish a body which has, in the last 12 years, contributed a great deal to education in this country and which, I think, can contribute a great deal more in the future.
I do not doubt that we shall have some application of all these various arguments during the course of this debate. I would merely say that I find it an extraordinary proposition that because one is not 100 per cent. satisfied with the work of the body it should therefore be abolished. I find it even more strange that this argument is put forward on one side of one aspect of the work of this body and the rest of its work has not been men-

tioned at all. I hope that that will not be the case during the rest of the debate because I am sure that a thorough examination of the work of the Schools Council would lead this House to reject the new clause.

5.0 p.m.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). The Minister tried to chastise him by referring to the examination side. That is the aspect that is most in the news, and certain recommendations made this year have caused some disturbance. So my hon. Friend's emphasis on examinations is justified.
My hon. Friend also referred to the curriculum. Within a shared dislike of the work of the Schools Council I must demur a little from his welcome for some of the work done on the curriculum. My objection is root-and-branch. It includes the humanities programme at Stenhouse. Not many people are neutral about that programme, although the teacher in charge of it was supposed to be neutral. In fact, I have never met a neutral teacher, nor would I want one to teach in any school with which I was connected. I would rather have someone with real blood in his veins, who knew what side he was on.
In education there is a great need for stability and continuity. The Schools Council should do its job in monitoring what should be preserved and what may have to be challenged. My main criticism relates to the way in which it was set up. Rightly or wrongly, it seems that its job was constantly to disturb the examination system and the curriculum, as if it had to justify its existence with continual suggestions, not for improvement and progress but simply for the sake of change.
Of course, the council is not alone, in education or in our society, in having such an aim. One of the evils of our society—not confined to one side of the House—is the constant desire for change without purpose, change that is not wanted.
Following the many religous quotations made in our debates, which have helped to improve our education, I should like to remind the House that St. Paul said of the Athenians that they


worshipped all things new. That is my criticism of the Schools Council.

Sir G. Sinclair: All these general judgments about the Greeks have to be read in their historical context. I believe that it was because he was teaching the young men new things that the Athenians gave hemlock to Socrates. So it is not true that they were always seeking something new; sometimes they punished people for seeking and teaching new ideas. The other proverb relating to the Greeks was "Nothing in excess." It was because they did things to such excess that they needed such a proverb. I warn my hon. Friend against too many references out of context.

Dr. Boyson: I welcome warnings, particularly if I am rushing headlong in any direction, and I am glad to know that the Athenians were not in all respects like the Schools Council. If they had been, Athens would have fallen much earlier.
Because of the way in which it has been set up, the Schools Council seems to believe that its job is to make suggestions for ways of employing new staff and spending more money. That is the way with all empires, and it is a constant concern when education needs stability.
In this context, one has only to consider the recommendations for sixth form examinations. In 1970, we had the Q and F, in 1973 the N and F, and this year the suggestion is that we have the CEE—the Certificate of Extended Education. This area might now be called "longer education". This new certificate has been proposed despite the fact that the National Foundation for Educational Research found little need for it. The retaking of O-levels seemed to meet the needs of pupils who had from one to four grades at CSE in the fifth form. The CEE will probably do no harm, but it will confuse employers about what examinations are taken and what they mean.
Inevitably, and rightly, there has been reference to the recommendations of 8th July—that fateful day. Unless they are reversed by the Secretary of State—we have heard of his unmalleability and we hope that he will be prodded from behind —they will lead to a further decline in

educational standards, caused by confusion.
One asks how the papers will be set, whether there will be two papers, or a joint paper, and so on. Can children be examined fairly at 16 when some might get eight or 10 A levels while other CSE candidates are desperately holding on to standards of literacy? A single examination at 16 will be the despair of the dull, will bore the bright, and will do little to unite society or measure achievement. I realise that there are genuine differences of opinion about the difficulties of sorting pupils into GCE or CSE material at 13 or 14. That is not something that anyone likes to do, and mistakes are often made.
A simpler answer would have been to have more overlapping grades. The whole thing could have been sorted out with more joint meetings and agreed syllabuses, without one examination having to be set to replace four or six grades of GCE or CSE. There is no ultimate law about how many grades there should be. We have had 20, and we have worked by means of a percentage. There is always change.
If we had 12 grades of GCE and 12 of CSE, the bottom four of the GCE could overlap with the top four of the CSE. The boards could meet to decide on overlapping syllabuses and we could gain the advantages of a joint examination with none of the disadvantages. But when things are imposed from outside, and certainly when they are done centrally, there is nearly always disaster. When the social history of the last 20 years is written, that will be found to be the case.
When people come together determined to make something work, it generally will work. But when it is imposed from the centre, there is a resentment on the fringes. There is considerable resentment here.
It has been said that the National Union of Teachers is the largest teacher union. That is true. It includes within its membership many primary and secondary modern school heads, some comprehensive school heads, and one or two grammar school heads. When a decision is made that largely affects the teachers of 16-year-olds, there should be some weighting. I accept that the Under-Secretary has had letters expressing a different opinion, but the teachers who will be training


children for the GCE and the CSE, together with representatives of industry and the universities, should have the decisive voice.
I have great respect for infant and junior school teachers. Almost always they do a sound job, but they know little of the position of the 16-year-old. If a decision had to be made on the standard that children should attain by the age of seven, I would expect the decisive word to be given not by teachers at GCE level, at sixth-form level, or at Oxbridge scholarship level, but by infant school teachers.
What happens is that union members vote in blocks. They decide how to vote before they go to a meeting. The danger is that decisions are made by the majority vote of those who know least about the problem. That is the weakness of the Schools Council. The criticism would apply equally if the secondary school unions combined with the universities to lay down the structure of education for children aged seven. Problems always arise when people vote on what should be done about other people. A better arrangement is for bodies to make decisions by general agreement among the people who are highly specialised in the subject in respect of which the decision is being made.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I am following the hon. Gentleman with great attention, but it seems to me, perhaps incorrectly, that the logic of his argument is that the people who are most experienced in and have most knowledge of primary school teaching, for example, should take decisions on the syllabus and the level of attainment of a child aged seven. It follows from that that people who are experienced in and deal constantly with pupils aged 16 should take decisions about the standard of attainment in schools, and that universities, for example, should have little or nothing to say about it. The hon. Gentleman is arguing for precisely the kind of teacher-determined standard about which his hon. Friend was so worried.

Dr. Boyson: I am glad that the hon. Lady raised that point. I have not made my meaning completely clear. At any stage, two groups are concerned. There are two groups of people who are concerned with children of 7 years of age—

those who have taught the children up to that age and those who will be taking them into junior schools. At that stage the decision should be made by the infant school teachers and the lower junior teachers who will be absorbing the children. Similarly, for the 11- or 13-year-old children, the decision should be taken by either middle school or middle junior school teachers and teachers at the secondary school to which the children are going.
The GCE examination was set up by a body on which the universities and professions were represented. I hope I am on middle ground when I say that decisions about the 16-plus examination should be made by the teachers who teach the children from the age of 14 to 16 and the sixth form teachers to whom the children will be going. Some children will go into industry, so industry should have a word to say. Some will go on to higher education and the professions, and those should be represented.
5.15 p.m.
This is one area in which infant school teachers do not seem to have the expertise that they have in other areas. The danger of teacher unions voting in blocks is that the decision can be made by the majority of infant and junior school teachers who are not experienced in the subject on which they make the decision.
When students leave universities they go either into research or to outside work. If a student goes into research the university knows about him. Some students go to outside work. In the courses they are running the universities had better respond not to Crowther-Hunt planning but to the sort of graduate that the world wants. If they do not do that there will be unemployed graduates.
My hon. Friends are not the only ones who have from time to time criticised the Schools Council. Nor are the people outside, who naturally tend to Right-wing political and educational views. On 19th June Sue Cameron wrote an article on the subject of the Schools Council. She used to write in all the educational journals, and she is universally respected. She said:
Since its inception 12 years ago it has spent approximately £9 million with remarkably little result.… The union's representatives make up their minds on various issues long before


they arrive at council meetings and they then vote in blocks.
So the discussion is purposeless and useless. They are whipped through the lobbies even before they arrive at the Schools Council.
The result is that any disagreements among union members are not reflected at top level which is where it matters.
Dr. Brian Thwaites has done a great deal for the reform of the curriculum and was at the beginning heavily involved with the schools maths programme—

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: That is the worst thing he ever did.

Dr. Boyson: I see that we have other reactionaries. Dr. Thwaites is Principal of Westfield College. He attacked the humanities curriculum project of the Schools Council. I am glad that the Stenhouse project is on the retreat and that very few schools are doing it. That in itself is a lesson. If a body suggests a project to a group of people with the power of decision, and that project is tried by other people and found to be unsuccessful, the implication is that the suggestions of that body are not likely to be successful in other areas.
The trouble with the 16-plus examination is that there will be no choice unless the GCE boards remain in existence. I hope that they will remain in existence and that parents will be able to discuss matters with them on Saturday mornings.
I do not know what will happen in 1981, when the two examinations are brought together, if the present climate lasts. It is the height of folly to believe that the climate will last until 1981. The cost of the Schools Council is £2½ million a year, and I am advised that it is going up even while we are speaking here.
If we want something done, I suggest that the Schools Council should be discontinued. Let it be recognised that it is not only Opposition Members who are saying that. There is a crisis of confidence in the council. If it is discontinued, other bodies could begin to do its job. When a new body is created it usually happens that an existing body goes to sleep or that the process of buck-passing begins. We have so many bodies taking responsibility that it is so easy for everyone to say that responsibility lies else-

where. The William Tyndale situation is a classic example.
I believe that Her Majesty's Inspectors once fulfilled a splendid function. It was their job to see whether something that was working well in one school could be transferred to another. They used to suggest that the head and staff of one school might visit another to examine the operation of an idea or scheme that might be transferable. That would be done instead of everyone going on a course and listening to somebody talking about something that they had probably never done. The best course is to ascertain why something is working in a particular school and to consider whether it is transferable. That is what the HMIs used to do.
The HMIs used to print their quinquennium and it was available to be read by all staff and governors. That produced a monitoring effect. I should like to think that the review and assessment of the Performance Unit is a sign—it may be no more than a cloud on the horizon —of the return of the HMIs, a return to the primary function of inspection in our schools. That would allow new and spontaneous movements in the schools to be considered on the basis whether they were worthy of transferring elsewhere.
I see no reason for the National Foundation for Educational Research not carrying out a research function. It is rarely that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, and I listened to his wise words with care, but I do not see why another body need be established. We are littered with committees and groupings with blanket representation. It seems that all must have their say before anythting is done.
I believe that people must have responsibility and that there must be a way of checking what they are attaining. The National Foundation for Educational Research was set up for that purpose. It is an independent body, whereas the Schools Council is a cross-hybrid. We have talked about hybrid Bills before and I must not refer to them this evening, but the council is a strange hybrid that seems to represent all sectors, including the Department. Let the HMIs be the people who carry the fertilisation of ideas and let the National Foundation for Educational Research do its job. If that is done,


and if things go wrong, the foundation will be able to let us know who is responsible.
If we had the HMIs performing their old function along with the foundation, without having some strange body in the middle that seems to perform no underpinning function, we should have a system that would have the approval of a significant part of the educational world. Despite the fact that recommendation after recommendation has been made to that effect, they have been turned down by the Secretary of State.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I have been looking for a place in the hon. Gentleman's speech in which to intervene. I am quite shocked to hear him say that the educational world is littered with people and bodies that must be consulted. He seems to be suggesting that we have far too much consultation. If I have understood anything of the hon. Gentleman's education philosophy over the past few months, I thought it was founded on the basis that parents are the primary people to be consulted at all times. I am not sure how he reconciles that philosophy with the suggestion that we consult too many people.

Dr. Boyson: I am delighted that I have brought the hon. Lady to the view that parents matter. How many parents are there on the Schools Council? If there are parents on that body, it is incidental. I suppose that some of its representatives are parents. I hope that there are normal people on it. There would be an advantage if part of the council were composed specifically of parents.
I agree with consultation, but I like consultation linked with responsibility. A famous speech was made in the 1930s about the Press Lords and power without responsibility. I do not like committees that cannot be pinned down afterwards for what they have done. A parent is responsible for his child, the head has his responsibility and the teacher has responsibility in the classroom.
At present, we have much useless consultation. William Tyndale is a classic example. The managers considered it necessary to circulate a petition, for which they have beeen attacked. They were Labour managers who were doing their

best in a difficult situation, but they were attacked for circulating their petition. However, the conclusion was reached in the old report that what they said was right. They did not know where to go and no one wanted to listen to them. They were passed from one person to another. A Right-wing reactionary woman—obviously very dangerous—put her little black paper on the wall. She was rebuked for doing so, but what she said was right. Are those not signs that nobody knew where power rested?
I have raised issues of great import that can be followed through on another occasion, but I conclude by arguing for the abolition of the Schools Council. Many of its recommendations have been turned down, and when its recommendations have been accepted they have usually been a disaster. It should be discontinued before it does further harm and before we waste more public money. The money that we should save could be used to employ 2,000 or 3,000 of the teachers who are now unemployed.
Let Her Majesty's Inspectors undertake the cross-fertilisation and let the Department of Education and Science place research responsibility with the NFER. Let us have some degree of stability in education. Let us leave teachers to do their job without, like plants, always digging them up to see whether they are growing roots. If we had five or 10 years of peace, a cheer would be raised the length and breadth of the country. I believe a similar cheer would be raised if the excellent suggestion embodied in the new clause were adopted by the Government. As an optimist, I am still hopeful.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). He epitomises reaction in education with such a nakedness and clarity that he inevitably produces just the opposite of what the Bill epitomises—namely, progress.
When the hon. Gentleman talks about a cheer going up tonight, I can assure him that a loud cheer will be raised by the majority of parents when one of the greatest education Bills ever introduced becomes an Act. The attitude of the Conservative Party demonstrates the correctness of what I have just said. It strikes


home that it is the party of privilege, the party of pomp and patriotism. Sir Winston Churchill once spoke of imperialism by the imperial pint. It loves elitism and reaction, and my hon. Friends and I do not. We want to change all that, and we shall do so. Conservative Members can shout for as long as they want, but the people outside the House want us to change the education system for the better. In the process there will be many growing pains.
I have the general impression that the hon. Member for Brent, North wants to go on endlessly discussing new clauses. It seems that he does not want to discuss the Bill. He wants to add to the 1944 Act, but he does not want to talk about progress as represented by the Bill. It seems that we are liable to be "new-clausing" until midnight because of the attitude of the education pessimists who are against all advances in education.
It is characteristic of those who are against advances in education that every time a document is produced that is critical of the education system they praise it to high heaven, using the national Press and the sections of the media that are at their disposal to do so. My imagination boggles at what would happen if a report were published that praised the system. I often wonder what Opposition Members would do in that event.
Last night was an instructive occasion when my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who is an old friend of mine from Sheffield and an ex-Chairman of the Sheffield Education Committee, read some of what went on in Committee. When the interventions took place, I thought we were back in Committee and that the filibustering was to take over once again. It seemed that Opposition Members, not knowing what the next sentence was to be, were prepared to say absolutely anything. It was a most instructive occasion. We all heard the anecdote about the donkey. That was most instructive and highly educational. I have not that passage with me or I should read it aloud. It was even better than Tony Hancock's classic "The Blood Donor."
The hon. Member for Brent, North regaled us with a long story about his

own school having been a truancy school. He went into a long dissertation about having sent out Christmas cards showing children wearing long grey socks. One could feel the hon. Gentleman happy at being able to hark back to days of yesteryear. Despite the efforts of teachers and parents to hold sway in education and to move forward rather than the reverse, the hon. Gentleman wanted to go back to the old days.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are always most entertained by the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), but is he in order in his remarks and do they relate to the clause?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are talking about New Clause 45.

Mr. Flannery: I know that everybody loves a Lord, but I must tell the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) that I have been a teacher all my life. I served on the Schools Council and was a member of the Steering Committee A. I was also on the Governing Council of the Schools Council.
Let me get to the essence of what the Conservatives have been claiming. The Tory Party is now characterised in its educational backwardness by a search for popular causes. Its members are now set on a course of attacking teachers who are trying to grapple with all the difficulties that are endemic in a capitalist society. The reality is that teachers throughout the country are grappling with problems in schools—problems imported into those establishments by the society in which we live. It is a fact that schools are not organisations aimed at rectifying the many ills in the kind of society in which Conservatives rejoice. I refer to a society of elitism and a society that produces drop-outs, with all the attendant violence that occurs at football matches and elsewhere—a violence that is deep within our society because few people own the wealth of our country and many people have no stake in it. It is that conflict in our society that is causing problems in our schools with which the teachers are grappling to the best of their ability.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does all this occur in New Clause 45?

Mr. Flannery: Yes, indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The clause seeks to strike a blow at an important organisation that is trying to help teachers, parents and children to advance the cause of education. Conservative Members do not like the situation, and that is the reality of what I am saying.
The teachers will take note of the fact that the attack upon them is being made by Members of the Conservative Party. It is also an attack upon the most powerful organisation within the industry, namely the National Union of Teachers, of which I am a member and which represents the democratic view of teachers in general. Everything that happens in that union goes through the democratic process. The union has a committee known as the Primary Advisory Committee, which has its representatives on the Schools Council and Steering Committee A. The teachers' viewpoint is filtered through to the Schools Council. The council itself does not lay down policy, but this happens as a result of discussions which are carried out at great length within the teaching organisation. That is good for parents, teachers and children and certainly for education. Advice is available to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whoever he or she may be.
It is idle nonsense to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is malleable and easily accepts advice from that extremely democratic body. My right hon. Friend and his Department go through a process of democracy and decide whether to reject or accept advice. The fact that that excellent advice, having been filtered through democratic organisations of teachers, parents and managing bodies, is available is all to the good. The National Union of Teachers is a dominant group in the Burnham Committee. No doubt we shall soon be hearing an attack on that committee, which negotiates wages. Teachers throughout the country will take note of the area of the House from which that attack will come.
The Conservative Party launches these reactionary attacks on teachers because it is only interested in the blue-blooded,

elitish type of person who wants private education. Because the clause is reactionary, backward looking and epitomises the views of the Tory Party, we should reject it.

Sir G. Sinclair: It is extremely difficult to follow the torrent of abuse which has been directed at us by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). However, we should try to examine how the Schools Council, an advisory body, established 12 years ago, is now forfeiting the confidence of educational opinion.
The first reason is that it is now regarded as a narrowly-based pressure group, and those who listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hillsborough will understand why.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) explained, with a wealth of references to a wide range of educational opinion, why educational circles had reached the assessment that this was too narrow a body any longer to hold confidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), speaking from deep experience as an ex-headmaster of a comprehensive school in an area which has deep social and other problems, also claimed that this body had become a narrowly-based pressure group. He mentioned other bodies, such as the National Foundation for Educational Research, which were now undertaking more creative work in this sphere. He referred also to what he hoped would be a renaissance of the influence of HMIs, which, in the past when educational standards in schools were disciplined and high, made a great contribution to the maintenance of those standards and to a cross-pollination of ideas from one school to another, especially where practices were good and often exploratory but successfully designed to bring out the best in the children of a school.
Those two speeches have shown one of the reasons why confidence has gradually been withdrawn from the advisory body of the Schools Council.
The second reason why the Schools Council has now lost respect among members of the educational profession lies in the proposals it has made about a single examination for all at the age of 16.


The fierce educational criticism of this proposal is that it is educationally inept. It does not meet, and cannot meet, the wide range of capabilities of children at the age of 16 within the compass of one single examination.
Another criticism is that this proposal has been made by a body which is largely ill equipped to tackle the very specialised task of examining children at this very crucial age. The third criticism is that it will lower standards. It will take away the incentive and lower the focus point towards which young people are working.
Many recent reports have shown evidence of the falling standards of numeracy and literacy in many parts of this country. These shortcomings are unevenly distributed but are a great handicap to the children who happen to attend the schools which are failing. In the face of these reports, we must maintain our power to keep up standards and tests of standards and incentives for hard work that many well-established examinations provide.
Another fear over this single examination is that it will lower standards at a time when universities are desperately worried about the standard of people seeking entry. They are not worried about the entrants' mental capacity; they are worried about the academic equipment which they are bringing from some schools to their university careers, thus handicapping themselves in the hard discipline of university work. Some universities are already talking about introducing a remedial year while others are talking—and this makes a terribly expensive noise—about making a three-year degree course into a four-year degree course in order to maintain the standards set by British universities over many years.
This is a situation which we should not allow to develop further. If the Schools Council has lost—as I maintain it has—the confidence of the educational profession, who suspect its inept proposal for a single examination at 16, the time has come for us to transfer its functions to other bodies which still retain the respect of the education profession and most of those who work in the schools.
I am strongly in favour of the new clause, sadly because the Schools Council,

which started out under good auspices and with high hopes, has failed the country, the teaching profession and, most important of all, the children and the parents. In the end the council will debilitate the educational discipline of this country if it is allowed its head.
I hope that, in summing up tonight, the Minister will give some reassurance that the Government will take a very careful look at the council's proposals. If they accept them they will do so in the teeth of the assessment of the most informed educational opinion in the country, including the best of the educational Press.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I find it difficult to resist the temptation to speak in this debate because I fear that we shall have no further opportunity for many years to have a debate on school examinations and the Schools Council. In that respect I welcome this debate, but I do not welcome the attitude of many hon. Members opposite.
The Schools Council was formed not only to overcome the shortcomings of the education system but to rectify some of the shortcomings of examination itself, some of which are based on an assumption that is no longer tenable, although Conservatives continually harp back to it.
Let us look at the history of examinations in secondary schools. Originally they were regarded as some form of qualification for entry to university. We have all heard the story of a man who was going for an Army interview and was asked his educational qualifications. He replied that he had a PhD and a BA, but the interviewer brushed this aside with "Never mind about them. Have you got matric?". Matriculation was the qualification for entry to university, but most people did not go on to university. This so-called educational standard, and the old school certificate examination, were related, to some extent, to the standards required for university entrance. Whether they provided educational standards in a broad sense is quite a different matter.
In the post-war expansion of secondary school examinations we have seen these standards carried on. Employers look on the grades a person has obtained in school


as a quick shorthand to his potential worth as an employee. Examinations are being used for very wrong purposes.
This belief that specialised examination results have some thing to do with the worth of a person as such fits in perfectly with the heirarchical and class attitude which Conservatives had, and which some still hold today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] This is true. People at an early age of either 11 or 16 are often pocketed for life by their ability to perform a series of specified tasks in narrow examinations. Take the example of hon. Members, who come from very different backgrounds. The number of "A" levels they achieved at 16 bears little relation to their general level of competence, imagination, or worth to society as a whole. If that is true in our occupation, it is true in most.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I take it that the hon. Member is saying that the old pre-war school certificate was equivalent to university entrance requirements. That is not so. It was an examination in eight or nine subjects which allowed a very wide variety of standards, and those people who did especially well in that examination were, in some cases, excused from taking matric if they wished to go to university.
Today I understand that it is necessary to do well not in a general examination but in two "A" levels in the subject one intends to read at university before having any hope of being considered for entrance. It seems that the old system was far broader. The present system is narrow and is being narowed still further.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for that intervention because he has emphasised my point. In the prewar period from which many of us here come, psychologically, if in no other way, the matriculation examination was the determining factor for selecting university material. Most people taking school certificate aimed at least at some form of matriculation exemption. The big superstructure of post-war secondary school examinations was rooted in this earlier and rather narrower conception. I would be the last to decry the importance of examinations for specific tasks, but to say that the fact that people are not capable of taking certain examinations means that they are not suited to particular tasks or

institutions, or to make particular contributions to society, is wrong. Nevertheless, that is what happened.
I remember, when the numbers of pupils in schools who were not capable of taking the GCE was increasing, a Mr. Beloe, director of education for Surrey, invented a new examination. It was a joke in my school to ask what was this new examination called Beloe. The reply was "Ah, it is Beloe 'O'-level". That assumption, which still persists as the CSE, is the basis for grading not only examinations but people too.
Hon. Members may dislike putting two examinations together, and they may be right. I dislike it, but possibly for a different reason. Putting the two together might reinforce the tendency of many people to label pupils at the age of 16 more or less for the rest of their lives, and that is wrong. If there is to be a series of tests, they should include a variety, and the onus should be on the prospective employer or on the person who is admitting the applicant to further education to be satisfied as to the nature of the examination and the ability of the person concerned.
I turn to the Schools Council. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten why it was founded. It was founded in the early 1960s—Lord Boyle had something to do with it—because there was no mechanism in the educational system to bring about development in the curriculum and innovation in secondary education, both of which were so badly needed. The innovations could not come for two reasons. First, the schools—even the comprehensive schools of the day—were trapped with their pre-war assumptions about secondary education which meant that those of us in the schools who were trying to innovate found it difficult to do so.
Secondly, teaching was not a profession—and it still is not. Education for teachers was dominated by colleges of education and departments of education in universities, and they were mainly concerned with the prestige end of the market. It was difficult for any teachers in any schools to introduce courses of lasting worth for those people who were not taking public examinations, whether the RSA, O-level, or the newly-introduced CSE. From the evidence I


remember at the time, and the correspondence then in the educational Press, one could see that pressure was coming from commerce and business, from the CBI and other institutions for the Department of Education to do something about it.
I think that the Schools Council structure was not the best. At the time I tried to suggest to the then Ministry of Education that a series of different centres all over the country was needed, not one which was centralised in London. The structure had to be in touch with classroom reality, and not go the way of all educational flesh by becoming obsessed with intellectual exercises without practical application.
That is what has happened to the Schools Council. It has taken the wrong step in many directions. There have been innovations. Innovations at classroom level, however, depend not on reading reports but very largely on the availability of materials, of space and of the right personalities. All these must be put together in one place, and that is very difficult. As a teacher with 10 years' experience of the Schools Council, I can say that it was not highly regarded by teachers.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) referred to the Stenhouse Humanities Project for the young school leaver. I did not like that project. It was badly founded and badly produced. Many schools produced materials of that kind in their own departments. One of the important criticisms was that the disciplines were mixed together, and particularly that my discipline, geography, was omitted. No one would claim that geography was not a humanity. It is one of the major studies which gives people some idea of the problems not only of their country but of the rest of the world.
The Nuffield Project was developed almost in parallel with the Stenhouse study. The Schools Council followed to some extent the Nuffield series of charitable bequests, which produced the Nuffield researches and the Nuffield science syllabus. But that syllabus went off on the wrong track because it started at the top end of the market in dealing with "O"-levels. The amount of resources devoted to any one school to get the Nuffield project off the ground used up space, teaching time and talent, which the other pupils could ill afford to lose.
The Schools Council has been disappointing. It may not have performed as well as some would have liked, but that does not mean that it cannot be better in the future. It does not mean that we do not need measures in our system to remedy deficiencies arising largely from history and past out-dated attitudes. Perhaps I may conclude with a characteristic comment by many teachers at the end of the school year by saying of the Schools Council, "Could do a lot better. Intellectual activity considerable. Field work and practical work poor."

6.0 p.m.

Dr. Hampson: The final remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) summed up my attitude to the Schools Council, but my conclusion is that since it has existed for 12 years, with its present form, its present structure, and its present objectives, it has possibly done all it can and that therefore it needs to be fundamentally revised or redrawn.
It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has left the Chamber. He always adds so much to our debates. We received a great quantity of the flannel that is so similar to his name. He always sings two songs—one about the 11-plus and how the Conservative Party is so committed to it, and the other which involves rushing to the defence of the NUT. We had the latter today. No doubt the hon. Member will sing the former on Third Reading.
The hon. Member was wrong to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) was attacking teachers. No one on the Opposition side is trying to undermine the teaching profession or the NUT, and no one is saying that teachers are not having to deal with a difficult situation. Overall, they are doing quite a good job.
That is not the issue in this debate. We are talking about a body whose size, cost and complexity are causing my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam to question whether it has the efficiency now required by our system. The council is like a labyrinth and its productions get swallowed up.
I came into direct confrontation with the Schools Council over the Willmott Report, which it commissioned. The


reason why I released details of that report was that there was no way in which it would have seen the light of day for at least a year. Nobody on the council has repudiated that. By the very nature of the council, there would have been internal debates and discussions, with the NUT lobby requiring the author of that serious research project to redraft his conclusions.
The conclusions of the report may be wrong. Dr. Willmott has expressed them starkly, and he tends to dismiss the alternative reasons for his findings. But if there are alternative explanations, they should be debated in public and not through the machinations of the council and the NUT.
The report was a valuable piece of work. It was precisely the sort of function that the council was envisaged as undertaking but which it has seldom managed to undertake in the past. It should keep under review the school system and check the effect of reorganisations on curricula. With the Willmott Report, the council got away for the first time from the nebulous world of teaching methods and the theory behind them and got down to basics—the standards in schools and the question of which methods produce which results.
The report was aimed at finding out what had been happening within the examination system between 1968 and 1973 and was the first stage in an expensive and long-term project. All credit to the council for getting on with something basic, but we must question whether it is the right body to be operating at that sort of level.
The research for that work was being done by the National Foundation for Educational Research. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) asked whether the foundation was not the best body for research. I think that it is. But the council may tend to muck up the findings of its research or have pressures brought to bear on it. One can imagine the headlines, if the Willmott Report had been released next year, saying not that standards in examinations had slipped but that teaching methods had improved. The whole climate of the debate would have been changed. The hon. Member for Hills-

borough and the NUT would have clapped and cheered, saying that they had always claimed this to be the case, but it would not have improved our education or achieved anything of value.
The Schools Council has a dual function—curriculum work and examinations. It is vital that more work is done in examining and assessing in our schools.
Examinations can do many things, but they cannot do what they are not devised to do. They can test the abilities of pupils, and how far they have got into a subject, attempt—through IQ tests—to gauge future capacity, test the capacity of a school and compare schools, or assess and monitor the whole system or sectors of it. These are different functions. Different examinations are needed for different functions, and the Schools Council has not yet sorted out the problem of how to get the exam system to do what we want it to do.
All of us, whether parents, teachers or politicians, and whether in the child's, our individual or the national interest, need to know whether our investment in education is producing a good return. It is understandable that teachers worry when we talk in these terms, but it is essential, for their own function, that we know whether they are efficient and doing a good job.

Mr. Spearing: Is the hon. Gentleman not making a fundamental error by regarding academic or scholastic standards, about which we might agree, as a good return to the education system. Are they not only one part of the story?

Dr. Hampson: I was going to say that efficiency in teaching is something that cannot be considered solely by reference to straightforward examinations like the GCE. Monitoring and assessing would do this job much more effectively. A section in the Bullock Report shows how such an assessment could operate, and it is vital that action on this matter should be initiated soon.
Another key priority for any Government is to establish national standards for pupils, particularly in the basics—literacy, numeracy, basic understanding of language, ability to communicate and read and write. We need a national goal, and we need to ensure that all pupils achieve it. This is an area into which


the Schools Council has not yet moved. It is vital to our education service that some agency should initiate curriculum change, monitor what is going on and spread effective ideas through the system in order to keep it dynamic.
On balance, the Schools Council has not done a bad job in this area. It has certainly done better here than on the assessment and examination side. But it has been overweighted in one direction and has spent too much time and money on things like the humanities project. The new chairman of the council, Sir Alex Smith, wants to move it another way, but it is a cumbersome body, with great pressure groups within it.
It has not yet moved into the key area dealing with the question of how much we involve children in skill acquisition—whether on the basic ability to learn to read and write or on the nature of job-related experiences which are relevant to the 300,000 pupils who leave school every year without any real qualifications and in a potentially hostile mood towards school and work. The Schools Council ought to have been considering work experience and vocational courses for pupils in their final years at school. It has not yet moved into this area, in which important advances have been made in Australia, Scandinavia and other countries in recent years. We have lagged behind. The charge to be laid at the door of the Schools Council is that it has failed here. But some body is necessary to move us into that type of area.
The proof has emered from the DES today in a reply to yet another planted Written Question, which denies us the means of questioning the Minister and making the pertinent points that flow from this kind of decision. It has been announced that pilot schemes are being set up, which arise from that feeble conference not long ago, for young people leaving school.
Its purpose Hill he to establish what forms of vocational preparation will attract young people.
That is the kind of examination that bodies such as the Schools Council should have been doing for years. Now we have another expensive, and slow, way of doing it—pilot ventures to find out what it is all about. We agree with the objective, but the Schools Council should

have got moving earlier. There has been a failure in the system.
Because of the failure of the Schools Council, such curricula developments are flowing from the Department of Education and Science. It looks as though the desire of both the new Permanent Under-Secretary and the Department is to move central Government into curriculum initiative and change. Some may say that is a good development. It is an important matter, which must be argued about. We should consider how far it should go and how far the Government should determine a common core of knowledge which all pupils should have before they leave school. It is vital that that argument be thrashed out. But if we do not have an effective Schools Council type of body, that will inevitably happen.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North, I do not think that the National Foundation for Educational Research can be relied on to initiate curriculum work and innovation. Some body must tell it into what area to move. It is important for both assessment and curriculum work. But which body will direct it? Its control is very narrow. In a few years we should no doubt be complaining about its having been in the control of a handful of people, and so on. It will be the DES, or, I hope, some helpful, more objective lay body that commissions the NFER to do things. That was the idea of the Schools Council which Lord Boyle had in mind. It was as valid then as it is now.
However, the structure of the council is no longer valid. That goal is essential, but the composition of a new body, whatever it is called, must be different from what it is today. The proportion of teacher representation must be different. There must be a greater say by the consumers of education—business, the professions, and commerce. We must move curriculum development into skill acquisition and induction work courses of some kind. That has been lacking in the Schools Council. It has spent a disproportionate amount of time on art and humanity subjects rather than on engineering and more scientific courses. So there is a case for some body on the curriculum that uses instruments, such


as the National Foundation for Educational Research, to do its work.
On the examination side, I argue that there is a case for using, instead of the Council that, as yet, sleepy instrument, the Assessment of Performance Unit, to monitor and assess techniques and examination structures. There is, I suggest a mess in our present examination system for school leavers—a wasteful overlap between the CSE and the GCE. The relationship between different subjects has such a degree of variation in marking that it is unhealthy.
Many CSE boards, because they are linked to the GCE bottom grade, are over-marking some subjects—I cannot recall them offhand—and are marking far too leniently in others. For example, I think that chemistry is marked too high by CSE boards in many areas, and English is overmarked. There is too wide a variation between regional CSE boards. Therefore, as in the 11-plus examination, which has been so condemned by hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches, it often depends on which part of the country a pupil lives in whether he has any prospect of getting good grades and, hence, his future prospects. There seems to be some academic drift in GCE boards as well, according to Willmott.
A whole battery of examinations faces teachers. Because of the project work for 16-plus, there are three different examinations running in some areas, three different sets of regulations and three bodies of people with which the teachers have to deal. That is wasteful, chaotic and unproductive of good education. Therefore, the system must be sorted out.
I suggest, however, that before any decision is taken about the Schools Council recommendation regarding a new 16-plus examination, which was a pure dog's breakfast and was in no way based on the project work and research—it was a botched-up compromise—the Secretary of State should order an immediate inquiry by the Assessment of Performance Unit. Let us give it something to do. Let us get it to inquire into the entire examination system at the school leaving stage. On the basis of that inquiry, when it highlights the weaknesses and the need for change, we can talk about an alternative system or, rather, a new approach

rather than system. We might be able to evolve the dual system into something that will work well, rather than scrap the whole lot and set up something entirely different for whose credibility no one would have very much regard for a long time.
I ask the Minister to act. I hope that we shall have an indication that that is the way in which departmental minds are working. We must always be careful before any big, costly central body is set up. The present body has served its purposes but outgrown its time. We need something else. It is now inadequate, and it is inappropriate for the future. It is time for a change.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I should declare my interest as parliamentary adviser to the National Union of Teachers. That does not necessarily mean that I agree with the NUT on everything, as will become obvious from what I have to say.
I hope that the House will reject this new clause. As usual, the Opposition have completely overstated the case. In the past we have all been critical of the Schools Council. However, I have not heard from the Opposition one word of praise of, or any description of the valuable work done in the past by, the Schools Council, except by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). There has been blanket condemnation of the Schools Council by the hon. Members for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and Ripon (Dr. Hampson).
Over the years the Schools Council has done a good job and produced many valuable reports. One of my criticisms used to be that the reports took a long time finding their way into the classrooms. For a teacher, it was difficult to get hold of a report from the Schools Council. On many occasions I have had to ask or to send for such reports. I suggest that they should have been distributed automatically to the schools.
The Schools Council has done a good job on the curriculum side. It is not surprising, when the council is dealing with the curriculum and examinations, that it should have a strong teacher representation. That does not seem wrong in any way. After all, the teachers have to deal with the curriculum. They have to conduct the examinations and


prepare the children for them. However, in view of the recent William Tyndale School inquiry, we cannot leave the curriculum exclusively to teachers. There must be some form of check.
I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, North that it might be a good idea to have inspectors doing what they did in the past—going round inspecting what is going on in individual schools and transporting their knowledge to other schools. That is what they did in the past. I wish that they would do it more today. It is a valuable way of getting good ideas from one school to another. Instead of calling meetings of teachers or setting up boards we should have people going round inspecting schools and putting ideas into the heads of teachers at different schools.
If it is right that there should be good teacher representation on the Schools Council, it is not surprising that there should be a majority of NUT members among those teachers. The membership of the NUT is larger than the total membership of all the other teachers' organisations put together. Therefore it would be surprising if it did not provide a majority of members.
I might make a criticism and say that 77, which is a rather unwieldy number, is too large. The difficulty is that there have been demands from the Opposition, with some of which I agree, to extend the number of people on the Schools Council to include more representation from industry, business and parents. I do not disagree. It would be valuable if there were more parents' representatives on the Schools Council, but that would make the council even larger. Alternatively, the proportion of teachers might be substantially reduced. I do not think that we should substantially reduce the proportion of teachers, as the present number is just right. Therefore, we have the choice of whether to make the council larger. The Minister should look at that difficulty. No one pretends that the Schools Council is perfect in its structure or what it does.
Those few words in favour of the Schools Council do not mean that its recommendations are necessarily good. I am critical of its recent recommendation about the school-leaving examination system. I am old-fashioned enough to have a slight affection for the O-level examination. During my teaching career I taught

11 different subjects to O-level. That is not good teaching practice, but it happens to the only graduate on the staff of a secondary modern school under the selective system.
I have a great deal of criticism for the O-level examination. There are too many boards. The boards are not sufficiently co-ordinated. Different boards have different standards. If a child is transferred from one part of the country to another he experiences difficulties when he finds that the examination at his new school is conducted by a different board with a different syllabus. There is a case for an examination like the O-level examination, with an objective test set from outside. I am not completely convinced that we should change absolutely to the CSE type of schoolteacher-based examination.
I ask the Minister to look carefully at the proposals made by the Schools Council. He should not assume that, just because a recommendation was passed by a substantial majority of the Schools Council, he must automatically accept it, and put it into operation. A little caution is due here, and, perhaps, a little more research.
I doubt whether we shall be able to make the change over by 1981, as is proposed.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend made a distinction between the GCE and CSE in that one is inside-based and the other outside based. Does he agree that one of the biggest differences occurs in terms of curricula and education opportunities when we consider the curricula of both examinations?

Mr. Mitchell: There is a big difference in curricula. There is a difference in standards. I have never yet been convinced that Grade 1 CSE was equivalent to an O-level examination. That may be heresay to my profession. Everyone tells me that that is so. However, I have never yet been convinced. There are different curricula, syllabuses and standards. The O-level is a higher standard.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to take a careful look at this matter before coming to a conclusion, and not rush into a hasty judgment.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I have followed the debate with great interest. I am always interested to see the way in


which the Conservative Party turns away from its more liberal policies in the former days of its more enlightened leadership. The Schools Council was one of the brainchildren of Lord Boyle. I was amazed to hear the expression of a negative attitude towards the programme of the Schools Council.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I believe that the Schools Council was the brainchild of Viscount Eccles.

Mr. Thomas: The Schools Council was created in the period of office of Lord Boyle, as Minister of Education. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The council came into existence in October 1964.
I was surprised at the way in which the debate was dominated by the discussion of the 16-plus project, which was put forward by the Schools Council, to the neglect of the discussion of the other work of the council.
I am interested in the pioneering work done by the Schools Council in Wales, much of which may not be known to the Opposition. That is why I urge the House to resist the new clause, if only on account of the valuable work undertaken in curriculum development by the Schools Council in Wales. When the council was set up and drew up its programme of work it decided to look at the primary school curriculum, and that for the early leaver, and the GCE and the CSE position, and also undertook to study the special needs of Wales.
I should like to highlight the work done by the council on curriculum development in Wales. This is not to deny the importance of the overall projects to children in school in Wales. Obviously, the work on the primary programme related to the Plowden and the Gittins Reports is relevant to all children in primary schools in Wales, as is the programme for the early leaver, which is related to Newsom.
Indeed, I have followed with interest the parallel development in the English programme, especially the work done on English for immigrant children, which may benefit from the work on bilingual education in Wales by the Schools Council and other organisations.
I should like the Department and the Opposition to see what aspects of the lessons we have learned from the bilingual experiments within Wales may be extended to tackle many of the linguistic problems now met in the inner city areas in England. This contribution in bilingual education has been made by the Department of Education, the universities and colleges of education and the Schools Council. This is an area where we might be able to assist with many of the problems of English for immigrants now being faced by education authorities in England.
For three years I taught in an institution which took no notice of entry qualifications. I have always been sceptical of the operation of the O-level and A-level system. I have always been sceptical of formal assessment techniques. My brief study of what had so far emerged from the Schools Council discussion on the 16-plus leads me to endorse many of the major criticisms made by the Schools Council of the two-tier examination system and the effect it has on the relative attainment of children at various levels. I taught in a college of adult education which had no formal entry requirement. We found that many of the disadvantaged pupils who had been brought up in socially deprived areas and who had not attained formal qualifications were able, after a short period of induction into educational techniques, to perform as well, if not better, than pupils who had obtained a qualification, even at O-level standard. It is clear that the assessment system at 16-plus requires revision.
I am surprised at the indignant tone of the Opposition towards the work of the Schools Council. I should have thought that if they were convinced of the virtues of the examination system at 16-plus, as is now stands, they would have been happy to see an objective study which amounts to a reassessment of that system.
6.30 p.m.
I am certain that, in looking at the work of the Schools Council, the Department will take into account the lessons which have been learned by adult education colleges and by the Open University about the work which can be done in the induction into education techniques of people who have not been able to reach a certain level in paper qualifications.
I turn now to the work undertaken by the Committee for Wales of the Schools Council, and it may be that I shall be able to educate some of those hon. Members who have been so critical of the Schools Council work in England by highlighting the positive work which it has done in Wales.
Much of the criticism which we have heard about the theoretical nature and the over-intellectualised nature of the Schools Council's work in no way applies to the work which has been done in Wales. Here, we have research which is oriented to basic field work, research which is linked very closely with curriculum development in the schools, and research which is linked very closely to the linguistic problems of individual communities.
The work of the Schools Council in Wales can be divided into two aspects. There is the work done for first-language children to parallel the work done through the medium of English in England. Such is the work on science and mathematics projects in Welsh-medium schools. The intention of this is to ensure that Welsh-speaking children have the same kind of child-centred investigatory approach to the learning of science and mathematics as has been made available to English children through Nuffield Primary Mathematics and Nuffield Junior Science in English. So the Schools Council has been able, through testing this project in some 65 schools, to offer to the minority of the population in Wales who have Welsh as their first language a similar kind of investigatory approach and innovative approach to educational methods as has been available to the mass of the population in England.
The same can be said for the work on the project which I know best, which is that which is based in the Department of Linguistics at the University of North Wales, Bangor, headed by Dr. Emrys Parry, on Welsh as a first language within secondary schools. This work is based on research work into the grammatical structures of contemporary Welsh and has been able to produce standardised forms of teaching of that language. To produce teaching material to teach Welsh as a first language is immensely

valuable because, though hon. Members may not realise it, for anyone living within a minority culture of some half a million people where most people within that culture are bilingual there is severe pressure on Welsh, the minority language, both from the grammatical forms of the major language, English, and from the fact that most of the knowledge gained by a child outside formal education is to be obtained from the media and is in English.
The work which has been done on this project has enabled the first-language child—the Welsh-speaking child—to have a similar level of teaching and a similar type of teaching programme as that available through the English language in the first-language teaching programme in England. Here again the Schools Council has been able to provide a very valuable service to those children within a minority culture in Wales.
The equally important work has been the pioneering work on bilingual education, bringing Welsh to families, to children and to schools where Welsh was not available. Here, the work of the Schools Council is overturning the tendency of the education system in Wales since 1870 to be through the medium of English and to deprive so many of our people of Welsh who are anxious to have both languages.
There are two important projects which I highlight. The first is the project on bilingual education in anglicised areas of Wales. It attempts to enable children whose first language is English to become bilingual at a very early age and to acquire competence in the second language early on. This project has already cost the Welsh Office, the Department of Education and Science and local authorities in Wales more than £100,000, and the material prepared in this project has been used extensively throughout both the Welsh-medium primary schools and by the voluntary sector.
The same is true of the interesting and important social research which has been undertaken into the problem of bilingualism and the motivation for learning Welsh and English based at the Department of Education at University College, Swansea. This is the project work on attitudes to motivation and


learning of Welsh and English. This, perhaps, is one of the most heartening from the point of view of those of us who have Welsh and want to see people given the opportunity to learn the language. It is very gratifying to see the high degree of motivation in towns like Swansea, which have been anglicised for a long period, with parents and children wanting to learn Welsh, provided that they were given the opportunity and given it through modern teaching methods by which Welsh was introduced as part of the curriculum and not seen as a separate subject—introduced as a medium of teaching, as opposed to being seen as a subject taking up additional time. The work done here on the attitudes of 10, 12 and 14-year-olds and of parents has been extremely valuable, and the report published in 1970 had a substantial effect on the education policies of the various local education authorities in Wales. It was especially influential in mid-Glamorgan and Clwyd.
I have gone into these projects in some detail because they indicate the valuable work which the Schools Council has been doing in Wales, the way that the council and its committee for Wales have taken upon themselves a commitment to defend and to develop Welsh language teaching in Wales and, in doing it, the way that they have been able to reverse the trend of decline both in the language itself and in the status of the language in the education system.
I strongly urge the House to reject New Clause 45 as being an ill-informed proposal. It seems that it is the view of the official Opposition that the Schools Council should be destroyed in order to create a similar body. That was the impression which I gained from the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). He said that a destroyed Schools Council would somehow have to be resurrected.
I am anxious to see the work undertaken in Wales, both on the bilingual education side and on the first-language side for the Welsh speaker, continued and expanded. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the clause.

Mr. George Gardiner: The debate began with the Minister and others holding up their hands in horror

when they discovered that this subject had been raised in this form. In fact, the debate has been a very useful and constructive one. It has been a lot more relevant to what is happening in education at the moment than the original Bill.
The Minister was perhaps a little harsh on my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane), whose advocacy of the new clause was extremely moderate. It is a matter of interesting semantics, really, when we talk about abolition, whether we are speaking of the total disappearance of such a body or about its abolition in its present form, so that a reformed structure can be put in its place.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) about the need for a body to perform the functions that the Schools Council at present performs, especially in curriculum research, though perhaps not so much in research into teaching methods, which could probably be done as well through the medium of the National Federation for Educational Research. Nevertheless, there are necessary functions for a body of this kind to perform, and in lending my support to the general purpose of my hon. Friend's speech I should not like it to be thought that we wanted to dismiss this body altogether from the education scene.
We have heard with what hope this body was set up about 12 years ago, though my hon. Friends have demonstrated admirably the general disillusionment that has now come into being. Even The Times Educational Supplement, which is in many ways a reflection of establishment opinion throughout the teaching profession, headlined a recent leader:
Another nail in the Schools Council's coffin.
That is how a growing number of people in the teaching profession and outside it are coming to see that body.
When one looks at the meeting of 8th July, which endorsed the general proposition for a new 16-plus examination, one sees many of the weaknesses of that body revealed only too clearly. It agreed in principle and reached a majority conclusion on the broad recommendation, but it had little to offer in terms of the


necessary administrative structure. That tells us much about the state of the Schools Council. It is preoccupied with the big issues of principle, which are often highly coloured with a particular view of educational ideology, but it is weak on educational application. When one considers the conduct at that meeting one find further grounds for criticism. The Times Educational Supplement published a lengthly report of that meeting, part of which said:
The proceedings were frequently punctuated with music-hall barracking, ribald comments and invective from the largest group of governors, the National Union of Teachers, towards any attempt to modify the proposals.
"Punctuated by ribald comments", and the rest, does not inspire one's faith in that body as being representative of academic responsibility as one understands it.
Why does this growing dissolution and criticism exist? It is important that we try to analyse that. A debate of this kind is valuable because constructive contributions have been made not only by hon. Members of the Opposition but by one or two hon. Members on the Government Benches. I refer in particular to the contribution by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell). We should analyse the problem and ask how this state of affairs has come about.
I ask the Minister to accept that this is not just a question of seizing on one proposal that we do not like and thereby branding the whole institution as useless. That is not our argument. The situation that the council has created over the 16-plus examination serves to undermine the faith that we might have had in the other work that the council undertakes. Dissolution with the Schools Council has come about because it no longer carries conviction, even within the education profession.
The second reason for that dissillusion is linked to the first—as an advisory body, it has a far too narrow base. The undesirability of the total preponderance of teachers within it has been demonstrated by my hon. Friends. The result is that it is regarded largely as a pressure group. My quote from The Times Educational Supplement increases the overall impression that it is working as a pressure group.

Miss Margaret Jackson: For hon. Members to comment on the behaviour of others at meetings is equivalent to the pot calling the kettle black.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Gardiner: I agree that our debates have a lively quality, but the public, and the teaching profession in particular, expect a more responsible attitude to be taken by a body that should not be divided in the way in which this House is divided; it should be motivated by the overall wish to serve its own profession and to fulfil the function for which it was established.
The root of the difficulty is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said, that the whole way in which the council works is wrong. An institutionalised teacher-union representation is not conducive to the council's fulfilling its task, nor is voting by union blocks.
It is destructive, because the present scene in education is that discussion, involvement and interest are broadening immensely. Far more people expect and demand to be involved in discussions about what happens in schools. Parents put on pressure to have more to say—a development for which we have tried to allow in the various new clauses that we have tabled. The discussion about change and about the way in which institutions should be changed and evolved now involves more people than in years gone by. In that situation it is particularly destructive for the Schools Council to have such a narrow base.
I am convinced that we must bring more lay opinion into the Schools Council, or into any body that seeks to fulfil the function of the present council. There must be more representatives from industry and those who will employ school leavers. Education should no longer be regarded as a secret garden for which the teacher unions have the only or major key. It must be opened out more, and there must be more participation at every level. That process can start here.
Teacher groups on the council are falling out among themselves over their own representation on it. That is another sign of the disintegration of purpose—

Mr. Flannery: I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman is arguing for


the reorganisation of the Schools Council rather than its abolition, which is what the clause proposes. So far, he seems to have said that the shape of the council should be changed and that different people should sit on it. Is that his point, or does he want the council abolished?

Mr. Gardiner: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for the start of my remarks. I do not like the Schools Council as it is at the moment. I should like to abolish it, but I recognise that there is an important function to be performed by an advisory body. I should like to see that advisory body constituted differently from the Schools Council.
The lesson that I draw from all this is that the council was splendid in conception, it was founded in great hope, but, due to its narrow composition, it cannot properly and responsibly carry out all its functions. It certainly cannot carry them out in the more open climate of discussion on educational matters that obtains today.
I call on the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend not to spend too much time worrying about the report that has just been presented on the 16-plus examination, but to initiate a much broader discussion with all interested parties on the future of the Schools Council—on whether it should be reformed, or abolished and replaced by a different body. I urge them to start consultations about setting up a body including not only the professional talent available but the lay talent, with a view to producing a smaller, probably less ambitious, cheaper but more representative and more effective body.
I acknowledge that the Schools Council has done considerable good in certain areas, but it is failing in its task now. The time has come to abolish it and create a reformed institution to perform this valuable function.

Mr. Stokes: Having failed last night, on the guillotine motion, to catch the eye of the Chair, I rise happily to support my hon. Friends who have spoken so ably to this most important new clause.
I think I attended the whole of the previous sittings on Report. One of my

speeches then had a little publicity, when I spoke about the importance of cricket and Latin.

Dr. Boyson: Do not let the Schools Council get at them.

Mr. Stokes: I hope that my remarks today will be received as being in the same authoritative vein and that they will be widely reported throughout the world.
I have listened to the whole debate over the past three hours. It has become apparent from the, on the whole, serious and excellent speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House—with one or two exceptions—that the Schools Council is not exactly the most popular body in England today. As a result of my own experience of life—first, as a schoolmaster, shortly, and, secondly, for the past 30 years, as someone who has been in personnel management and has seen the products of schools and colleges—I differ in my philosophy of education from the Schools Council.
I believe that children must be taught to learn, and made to learn, that they are born little brutes and must be disciplined. That does not mean that I do not love children. Fortunately, I am the father of three children, who appear to have some affection for me.
I am trying to give the views of most ordinary people—certainly of my constituents. What most people want—and most of them have never heard of the Schools Council—is to see that their children are brought up decently. Most of them want their children to be brought up as Christians and to have inculcated into them a basic knowledge of the English language and a reasonable standard of numeracy.
In spite of the millions of pounds spent on education, many people believe, as I do, that young people are leaving school less well educated than a generation ago. I do not blame the Schools Council for that, but we must ask ourselves what it has achieved and what it is trying to do.
On the question of standards and examinations, I have a somewhat ambivalent attitude. On the one hand, I believe in the most rigorous standards of learning and in people having to pass stiff tests. On the other, I have enormous sympathy for those who have tried very


hard and have failed to pass their examinations. At the beginning of the war I was sent to Sandhurst to be trained to be an officer. I was asked to pass an examination on the principles of the motor bicycle. I found it an extremely difficult subject, and received 15 per cent. in the examination and failed. Fortunately, that did not stop my becoming an officer. I rode a motor bicycle a great deal, and luckily it never broke down and I never had to mend it.
I have been concerned with business, industry and commerce for many years. Most business men will say that intellectual skills alone are not sufficient for success. Many other qualities are required —pre-eminently the ability to get on with others and, for those who aspire to management, the capacity for leadership. I suppose that today we see that best exemplified in the Armed Forces.
Whatever it has done in the past, I look upon the Schools Council now with grave suspicion. In spite of the theories and practice of the council, I believe that education is much more than schools, colleges and text books; it is a process of self-development from the cradle to the grave, which involves—apart from study and learning, important as they are—experience of life, appreciation of the arts, personal contacts and friendship, wide travel, and a sight of other civilisations.
I also believe that, in the end, character is usually more important than brains. There is much to be said for the custom in modern China, where not only do young people have to undertake some form of national service but older people are liable to be sent to work in the fields. For example, a professor of psychology may be told "You are a very good professor of psychology, but you are not very good at digging potatoes". Perhaps in this country we should have an interchange between the intellectual life and other ways of life, particularly for journalists. Above all, I would send some of the journalists into the fields. We should have a variety of mental and physical work.
Not all young people will be intellectuals. The main demand of British industry today is for skilled craftsmen. Even with our present unemployment, there is still a great shortage of them.

More must be done in education to make sure that enough men are available for those jobs.
For certain non-intellectual boys who show many other good qualities, the Outward Bound course and other adventure training can give self-confidence and self-control, and do them a great deal of good, as we know from experience, when they return from those fairly tough experiences.
7.0 p.m.
We have to ask ourselves, and the Minister must ask herself, in spite of her Department, in spite of the great apparatus we have in this country, and even in spite of the Schools Council, why it is that, although we are still ahead of America, thank goodness, in education we are falling behind France most certainly, with her more strict and rigorous curriculum and examinations.
I feel that the danger now is that with all this so-called progressive thinking in the Schools Council and elsewhere, as a nation we are becoming sloppy in learning, sloppy in discipline and sloppy in respect for authority. The increasing crime figures, unfortunately, bear that out. I find that our young people today are still absolutely first-class but they need leadership and inspiration. They do not just need research people and blue books; they want people who are prepared to go out and help either full-time or part-time. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen laugh. It seems quite worth while to assist these young men and women, and to show them the way.
To stop hon. Gentlemen laughing, I would tell them that I was talking to a young man of about 20, who took 20 youths off the streets of Birmingham, where they were smashing up telephone kiosks, and brought them into a camp for a fortnight. At the end of that fortnight those boys were completely changed young men. That is surely worth while, and it is the sort of thing that the Schools Council might give thought to.
We have overdone the universities and have not done enough for the technical colleges. We have become obsessed with full-time courses and do not have enough respect for the sandwich course and the part-time course. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) said, the policy today is "change


for change's sake". What people want, particularly young people, is stability. If I were asked to find a chairman for a new Schools Council I would have to go back into history, and the best man I could find would be Dr. Johnson.
I believe that the Schools Council should be abolished. I do not believe that we need to proliferate bodies of this kind. In this country, there are too many people researching, monitoring, clerking, examining, and doing everything except a worthwhile practical job. We have to have more people helping practically instead of gassing about it day and night. When I hear people gassing about it I ask what they do. I ask them if they go to their boys' club on Saturday nights, or whether they take the Scouts out. The answer is, normally, that they just read some wretched book written by an American professor.
If we are to have a resuscitated Schools Council—and I very much hope that we shall not—surely at least the teachers must form a minority on it and it must be composed of parents and ordinary people, with as broad a base and background and experience as possible.

Mr. David Lane: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) said, but I am a reformer in this matter and' not an abolitionist. I must apologise to the House for the fact that, for a respectable reason, I was not present to hear the earlier part of the debate. I am particularly sorry to have missed the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane).
My judgment of the Schools Council so far is that it has certainly done some very useful work but that other work has been of much more doubtful value. I shall confine my brief remarks to one example of the latter, in which there is a special Cambridge constituency interest as well as a national interest. I refer to the proposal, which has been mentioned in a number of earlier speeches, to replace the GCE and CSE by a single new examination.
The Local Examinations Syndicate of the University of Cambridge is greatly disturbed by this proposal, on two main

grounds. First, educationally, it fears that the new single examination will be pitched below the low point of GCE. It is afraid that the brightest pupils will not be sufficiently stretched and that academic standards are seriously at risk. The second ground concerns administration, which has not been mentioned so much in the debate. There are serious doubts in my constituency about the costings of this proposal. The Schools Council, I understand, was unwilling to join some of the GCE boards in an independent inquiry, and so the Local Examinations Syndicate in my constituency has produced its own comments on this aspect of the proposal. I quote its two principal conclusions:

"(a) that any common 16+ examination will be more expensive than the present system in examiner's fees and that the increase will be significant, and
(b) that any administrative system set up on C.S.E. lines will have other costs' which are considerably higher than those of the G.C.E. Boards in 1974, and hence higher overall administrative costs than the present system."

I stress, above all, that the academic effectiveness of the new system, quite apart from the important aspect of cost, has not been established. I have quoted opinions from my constituency, and other universities take the same view. Many employers are equally anxious, and so are a large number of parents. I hope that hon. Gentlemen read the comment in The Times on 9th July, when it finished its leading article by stating that:
There is no reason to believe that a single system can ever be devised which will not be too easy for the top ten per cent. of candidates and too hard for the bottom ten per cent. The Secretary of State would be wise not to approve yesterday's proposal.
I appeal, as others have done, to the Secretary of State and to the hon. Lady to go very slowly indeed. In recent years the country has had to digest too much change, too hastily introduced. In respect of this proposal of the Schools Council, whatever the value of much of its other work, which I acknowledge, I believe there is an overwhelming case for sensible scepticism and for a pause, so that all of us can give much more thought and discussion to what is being proposed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We have had a most interesting and constructive debate, which has really established the case against the guillotine, because it is precisely such debates as this that are excluded by the use of that device. By


tabling these new clauses we have, up to a point, been able to do the Government's job for them and to bring before the House these questions of intense educational interest to people who are not permanently obsessed with seeking to impose comprehensive schools all over the country.
I would congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) on the succinct and robust way in which he introduced this important new clause. The contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and others have been of an equally high quality. The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was not only of a high but of an arresting quality.
I was sorry that we only had a brief reference to cricket and Latin. At least my hon. Friend put them in the right order, cricket first and Latin second. I was reminded, as he was referring to the international attention that his remarks aroused on the last time round, of that line of Robert Hitchen's from his novel "The Green Carnation":
They are good at cricket and despise poetry, and that is what the English consider virtue in boys.
I do not know what headlines he will obtain tomorrow, but I think that we must look to Mars, if there be a Press there, to do him justice.
One has some symapthy with the new clause—it gives a useful opportunity to discuss this problem—although I am afraid that I cannot, from the Front Bench, support it, as it stands.

Mr. Flannery: Oh.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry to disappoint Labour Members, but my own position remains what it has always been, that of the extreme centre. I would draw the hon. Member's attention to Chester-ton's reference to
the dull heresies sprawling to left and to right, The wild truth reeling but erect.
That is not a cryptic reference to the Minister of State. There are, of course, different views on this side, and I have to try to keep a balance between them, and to retain my own balance at the same time. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North the other day, you cannot have two Dervishes on one

rug. I might remind my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) that one certainly cannot have three, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) that it is highly undesirable to have four. So one must be careful what one says on this subject.
I subscribe to the thesis that the power of the Schools Council has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished, but I think that its abolition would be going too far. The one principle which I thought had escaped the onslaught of the Secretary of State is that the control of the curriculum should be vested not in the Government but in the local education authorities, the governors or the heads: in other words, that it should be decentralised.
We have yet to have an explanation of the speech of the Permanent Secretary to the Department in which he said that the curriculum should no longer be treated as a secret garden. It is a dangerous doctrine to centralise the curriculum. If one decentralises it, however, it is inevitable that bodies like the Schools Council will have a considerable influence.
The Schools Council has come into prominence because of its recent recommendations about examinations—and quite right, too. Those recommendations may have been among the factors which led my hon. Friends to put down a new clause to abolish it, although evidently they were not the only reasons. Certainly we are deeply anxious about these proposals.
If they were implemented they would weaken the two bases of the education policy which the Opposition has consistently put forward. The first is that we should stand for high standards in education. The second is that we stand for the extension of parental influence and choice. The struggle for the preservation of a certain number of selective schools, the struggle for a variety of schools, has been subsumed—if I may borrow that word from the Minister of State—into our general campaign for high standards.
7.15 p.m.
I am glad to see that the Minister of State is back with us and is not taking one of his progresses around the Kingdom. Since a remark that I made last


night seems to have been rather misunderstood, when I referred to his visit to an obscure college in the North of England, I have now learned the name of the college to which he went. I am glad to say that I have been told that it is the Nelson and Colne College, a college which certainly has an international reputation. The point that I was making was not about the obscurity of any college, nor indeed about the North of England, for which I have a great regard. I share Byron's view on the "passionate North". It was, after all, always the last stronghold of the old religion, scene of the Pilgrimage of Grace and other manifestations of tradition and loyalty. My only concern is that it seems to be so indifferently represented here. My concern was that the Minister of State had in this respect neglected his parliamentary duties and had put an extra-curricular activity first.
High standards will not occur of their own accord.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Since the hon. Gentleman has returned for the ninety-fifth time to this topic he must allow me to say what I have said so frequently, that I had on that occasion, and still have, every confidence in my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. The hon. Gentleman neglects not simply the North of England but the interests of Wales. He must get away from his South-Eastern bias.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. I assure the Minister of State that I was not attacking him. I was merely defending myself, which is a much more important occupation.

Mr. Mike Noble: And more necessary.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister of State for drawing my attention to Wales. I agree with so much of what was said by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), who, unfortunately, has temporarily vanished, on the importance of the use of the Welsh language and the work done by the Schools Council in that respect.
The Schools Council has done a number of good things and a number of

bad things, and one has to balance one against the other. We have put forward consistently an argument for the monitoring of achievements and efficiency in schools as an essential weapon in promoting high standards. We believe equally strongly, that, if there are to be high standards, we must have examinations which are real tests of ability and objective, both in their conception and in the marking of the papers.
I welcome the opportunity to make plain the Opposition's position on these proposals of the Schools Council. First, we judge them not on doctrinal but on educational grounds. There is an impressive list of doubters and opposers who were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) has spoken with great authority on the doubts of the Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate.
When one raises the school leaving age from 15 to 16 one has to make certain changes and adaptations in the examination system, but it is in no way necessary, because of the raising of the age, to have a common examination and abolish the well-tried distinction between the CSE and the GCE. Indeed, there are almost insuperable obstacles, we think, to establishing a common examination at any age. Either the questions will be too difficult for the less able, so that they will not have a fair test of their ability, or they will be not difficult enough for the able and they will not face the necessary challenge.
It is these difficulties which have not been faced and have not been researched by the Schools Council. I hope that the Schools Council will go back and think again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said, the Schools Council has been deficient in the field work it has done.
We strongly resist the suggestion that a subjective assessment by teachers at the particular schools should be substituted for the objective assessment of the board. Before the hon. Member who is such a distinguished member of the NUT attacks me and says that I am attacking teachers, I will tell him that this is not an attack on teachers, because teachers will be involved elsewhere. This is a plea for a standard of objectivity, so that the confidence of


those who look to the examination system as providing a test of its products, and of the standards they are likely to expect, will be retained It is no service to the teaching profession if the confidence of industry—we are, after all, an industrial country—in our examination system is undermined.
We can certainly consider ways of improving the system. For example, we should consider a common curriculum. Why not? We could have a common curriculum and different methods of assessment. No doubt we need better methods of assessment. That is a job for the Assessment of Performance Unit.
What has happened to that unit? It seems to have passed from a period of innovation to atrophy, with no constructive period of activity in between. It was launched with a great fanfare of trumpets and has vanished entirely from sight. It reminds me of the review of a book called "The Secret" by Hegel, in which the reviewer commented that the secret was only too well kept by its author. May we hear exactly what the Assessment of Performance Unit is doing? What is happening within the bowels of Elizabeth House? That was the most important single innovation of the Government's régime.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Is it not similar to another concept, the Parent's Charter, which is often advocated at national level, not least by the hon. Gentleman, but is all too rarely implemented at local level by Conservative Party politicians when they are in control?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a very fair criticism. There are certain councils, such as mine in Essex, which are bright exceptions to that rule, but councils of all hues are at fault in this respect. Let me set the hon. Gentleman's anxieties at rest. Thanks to the unremitting labours of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), Parents' Charter Mark 2 is about to be launched upon an eagerly awaiting public. We hope, when that is done, that we shall see an even more positive response from councils throughout the country.
We must ask ourselves what is the real reason behind this suggestion from the Schools Council. I am afraid that it has nothing to do with the educational

arguments or with the educational considerations which I have put forward. It is because of the educational disadvantages that we are against the proposals. It has to do, I am afraid, with yet another form of social engineering. The same impulse lies behind the desire to impose comprehensive schools everywhere—the notion that it is discreditable to recognise that there are different levels of ability and aptitude in different children. That is the impulse that lies behind this drive for a single examination. We do not take that view. If we are to have high standards, we must recognise that there are different levels of ability.
We say that there must be an improvement in our comprehensive schools, and that is just as important as is the preservation of variety in schools. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham recognised in his excellent speech yesterday that that has always been our policy, and I am grateful for the ecumenical tone which I detected in his remarks. We must look to standards throughout the educational system, and we must use the tool of examinations to do it.
We have also discussed the question of the composition of the Schools Council. It should be reformed, as was advocated in the remarkable speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). There are too many representatives of teachers upon it, and not enough representation of other interests; 44 teachers out of a total representation of 77 is an unbalancing factor. We should like to see more representation of outside interests, such as industry.
We should also like to see the functions of the Schools Council extended to the important task of monitoring standards within the system. That needs to be done. The Schools Council could join forces with the National Foundation for Educational Research and the Assessment of Performance Unit to do that.
The next Conservative Government will certainly not implement these proposals of the Schools Council. I would welcome a clear statement from the Under-Secretary of State that the Secretary of State will not do so either. It has been presumed in the Press that he is in favour of the proposals. I do not know why.


I thought that the Under-Secretary of State, in her own discreet way, gave us a strong hint today that there is no unanimity in Elizabeth House in favour of these proposals, and that there is a great deal of caution there. That would be a wise course to follow. Let those proposals be thoroughly examined and assessed before any rash and precipitate decision is reached. If we have managed to convince the Under-Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the Secretary of State of that point, the debate today will have been fully justified.

Miss Margaret Jackson: We have already gone over the same ground so many times that I shall seek to make only one or two points. What has come through very clearly is that although many hon. Members who have spoken felt the need to direct their remarks to the abolition of the Schools Council, because that is the way the new clause is couched, they have been calling for the reform of the Schools Council rather than its abolition, and for a different emphasis on various aspects of its work.
Similarly, hon. Members have asked for assurances about the way in which the Secretary of State regards the proposals put forward by the Schools Council. Here I repeat what I said in my opening remarks, when I sought to make plain to the House that it is the intention in the Department of Education and Science that these proposals shall be examined with great care. We are in no less doubt than are hon. Members on both sides of the House that these proposals are of considerable significance. We wish to look at them carefully, and to examine how they may be implemented, if that is thought to be desirable. Given that we wish to give careful consideration to the details of the proposals, I must avoid being drawn by the many comments made by hon. Members about their own reservations. It would be wrong for me to seek to encourage a detailed discussion of the proposals at this stage.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) regarded the proposals made by the Schools Council as a form of social engineering. I have always believed that education was to some extent a process

of social engineering. That belief was confirmed by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who said that children were brutes and had to be trained to be civilised human beings. It is a little invidious to condemn a proposal by labelling it as social engineering, as if that were automatically undesirable, when many of the civilising processes in our society are themselves social engineering.
Throughout the debate it has been clear that there is concern about many aspects of the work of the Schools Council. Equally, there is a great deal of interest in many aspects of its work. Many are dissatisfied with the details of its proposals and the operation of the council itself, and seek to have them improved. But the matter that has emerged most clearly is that there is still a need for the work of the council. The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) said that he did not want the council, but he did want a body that would do this, that, or the other, and that turned out to be the work of the council.
The interest expressed in the hon. Gentleman's clause has been great, but support for it has not been uniform in terms of the way in which it has been couched. I suggest that it would be for the benefit of the House if the hon. Gentleman were to withdraw the clause.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 57

SCHOOL TRUSTS

'The provisions under Clause 1 of the Education Act 1973 whereby the terms of a Trust may he altered following the approval by the Secretary of State of proposals made by the governors or managers of a school affected by a Trust, shall not apply for proposals made under section 13 where the governors or managers declare that such proposals were not willingly submitted by them to the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may take Amendment No. 60 in Clause 2, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
'(5) No proposals submitted by a local education authority or by the governors or managers of a voluntary school, shall conflict with any trust deeds pertaining to the school or schools in question, and the Secretary of State shall not require proposals which would be in conflict with any such trust deeds.'

Mr. Brittan: The new clause and the amendment are designed to provide a measure of protection for voluntary schools by preventing the Secretary of State altering their trust deeds against their wishes, and in that way compelling them to become comprehensive schools.
Trust deeds are the documents under which the independent property of a voluntary school is held. Those documents often prescribe the purposes for which the property is to be used and the kind of school that it is intended to be. They may enshrine the intentions of the founders of the school and all those who give money to the school after the foundation. If the trust deeds can be altered at the whim of the Secretary of State to enable such schools to be conducted on a wholly different basis from that intended by the founders and donors, that amounts in our view to little more than legalised robbery. If the new clause is not agreed to, the Bill will permit such legalised robbery. Indeed, there is little reason to doubt not only that the Bill will permit it but that it is designed to bring it about.
A peculiarly repellant aspect of the Bill as it concerns voluntary schools is that not only are they to be made comprehensive at the behest of the Secretary of State, irrespective of their wishes and irrespective of their previous character, but their governors and managers are themselves required to act as their own executioners. They are required to wield the axe against the tree that they are specifically charged to cherish. It is to prevent that outrageous situation arising that we put forward the new clause and the amendment.
To understand why the clause is necessary, we must consider the position of the voluntary schools before the passage of the Bill. Under present law it is impossible for proposals under section 13 for a change in the character of a

voluntary or aided school, for the enlargement of its premises, or for anything of that sort, to be passed without the express consent and support of the governors and managers. The only thing that a local authority can cease to do with the support of the Secretary of State is to cease to maintain the school.
If the local authority wants to say "We do not like this type of school; we do not wish to support it", it can withdraw its support if the Secretary of State agrees with it. The local authority cannot say to a voluntary school "We want you to change your character, your size, your age group and the basis of your selection". None of that can be done by the local authority or the Secretary of State. The only people who can bring about such a change are the governors and managers. Even then, the Secretary of State has to give his approval. The position remains that it is only the governors and managers who can initiate a change in character or a significant alteration.
Over the years it was found that there were occasions on which, in accordance with the spirit of the wishes of the founders of the school and those who set up the trust under which the property was owned, it was desirable from the point of view of the governors and managers to make significant changes, alterations or additions to the school premises. In those cases it was occasionally found necessary, without doing violence to the wishes of those who provided the trust fund, for an alteration to be made to the trust fund and the arrangements under which it was held. For that reason the 1973 Act was passed. Under that Act the Secretary of State can modify a trust deed after consultation with the managers and governors in consequence of any proposals approved by him under Section 13 in relation to that school.
The essence of the matter is that under the 1973 Act the alteration of a trust deed arises only if proposals have been made and approved by the Secretary of State. Such proposals can be made for voluntary schools only by governors and managers. Therefore, the power to alter the trust deed is at present one which the Secretary of State can exercise only in accordance with the wishes of the governors and


managers. He cannot do so by violating their wishes.
If the Bill is passed, the situation will change completely. The position under the 1973 Act will be completely altered. If we trace the history of the matter, we see that under the infamous Clause 2(2) the Secretary of State, if he is not satisfied that adequate progress has been made towards the comprehensive ideal, can require the governors and managers of a voluntary school to submit their proposals for advance towards that ideal. If they are not good enough in his view because they do not go far enough in the direction of the comprehensive ideal, he can require further proposals. Indeed, not only can he require further proposals, he can require them to fulfill such conditions as he may specify with respect to any matter in relation to which the previous proposals were, in his opinion, unsatisfactory.
We have a position where by stages the Secretary of State is compelling a voluntary aided school, possibly completely contrary to its wishes, to the wishes of the governors and managers and to the wishes of those who founded the school, to put forward proposals for its own destruction and transformation, proposals for the radical alteration of the character of the school.
The matter does not end there. Under this iniquitous piece of legislation, the Secretary of State may direct that the proposals that have been dragged or hauled out of the governors and managers be treated as if they were proposals under Section 13 of the 1944 Act—namely, put forward voluntarily by the governors of the school in the normal way.
It is truly the case that the governors are required to be their own executioners. It is bad enough to decide that the Secretary of State must have a right to compel voluntary schools as well as county schools to become comprehensive, but it adds insult to injury in an infamous and iniquitous way to require governors of those schools to act as their own executioners.
If that is not enough to do the trick, if the position is that the governors find that they are faced with the obstacle of the trust deed which acts as a restraining hand, because there will be what are deemed to be voluntary proposals—

although they have been dragged out of the governors under the 1973 Act, distorted in character and applied for different purposes in wholly different circumstances, which is a travesty of that piece of legislation—the Secretary of State will have the right to tamper with the trust deeds, violating the intention of the founders and donors. This is a piece of mockery and absurd conduct, and anybody who plays a part in it is doing a grave disservice to the House and is an object of shame and reproach. It is a classic case of adding insult to injury.
For this reason we propose a remedy to cope with the situation. The provision in New Clause 57 says that under Clause 1 of the Education Act 1973
the terms of a trust may be altered following the approval by the Secretary of State of proposals made by the governors or managers of a school affected by a Trust. …".
It goes on to say that those provisions shall not apply in respect of proposals
made under section 13 where the governors or managers declare that such proposals were not willingly submitted by them to the Secretary of State.
It is being said there that it is a travesty of justice to allow the position to come about whereby a Secretary of State can alter trust deeds on the basis of proposals which, by a legislative charade, are deemed to be and pretend to be those of the governors. They are no more proposals of the governors than they are of the Czar of all the Russias. It is an absurdity—and, even worse, it is a gross injustice—which we are seeking to remedy in this clause and the associated amendment.
If the Secretary of State is determined to destroy voluntarily-aided and voluntarily-controlled schools in this country and to compel them into a narrow straitjacket of comprehensive education, irrespective of the circumstances of the school, let him do his own dirty work and not bully and cajole the governors into doing it for him and then exercise a punitive power to seal the dirty act. That is what this clause intends to avoid.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) on a remarkable speech. He has a command of moral indignation that should commend itself to the whole House—not least when considered in the


context of the speech we heard from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) who, by his tactics on this Bill, has lost his right to moral indignation.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have not lost my capacity.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman would never lose his capacity for that. He has a greater capacity for moral indignation than any other Member of this House, and I congratulate him on it.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is a worthy object.

Mr. Fowler: Whether it has any objective basis is a matter of judgment. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not least in managing, in a quarter of an hour, to say that legalised robbery is wrong except in circumstances where there is added to it the offence of conspiracy.
The hon. Gentleman's argument was not that the trust deeds should not be modified, nor was it that the will of those who offended the trust should be observed. His argument was that, provided that the Secretary of State and the trustees conspired, any desirable change could always be made, but that a Secretary of State—especially a Secretary of State in a Labour Government operating under the provisions of this Bill—should not himself require changes in line with national education policy. That may not be an argument that would commend itself to the whole House. Most of us would regard the addition of the offence of conspiracy to the offence of robbery as in no way a palliative of that offence, if we were to accept in the first place that there were an offence, which we do not.
The hon. Gentleman then said that under the 1973 Act—I stress the year of the Act because it is clear who put it forward, namely the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition—the Secretary of State can make such modifications of the trust deeds relating to schools as appear to him or her to be requisite in consequence of the approval of proposals under Section 13. A trust deed can be modified in pursuance of this provision if the Secretary of State approves proposals for a school to become co-educational. There is no doubt about that because that is the present state of the law.
The hon. Gentleman's argument was to the effect that Clause 2 of the Bill should apply and that the effect of the amendment would be to disapply that section of the Act put forward by the right hon. Lady in respect of proposals submitted by voluntary school managers or governors under Clause 2.
In practice, what does that mean? It means simply that if a trust deed provides that a school should be a grammar school or should provide education for pupils of one sex only, the Secretary of State's power to modify that deed would be excluded in respect of proposals put forward under Clause 2.
Let me give an example based on the hon. Gentleman's argument. Where there is a proposal for a single-sex school to become co-educational, the trustees would be under a duty to make the site available for the conduct of a single-sex school. The governors or managers would be under a simultaneous statutory duty under Section 13 of the Act, as modified by Clause 4 of the Bill, to provide a co-educational school on the same site. That is manifest nonsense. It is true that the trustees or governors or managers can apply to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme to modify the trust deed, but if they did not choose to do so, they could not in practice be compelled to make such an application. The hon. Gentleman postulated that in such a case the governors would be unwilling. That is the basis of his argument. He may be arguing primarily to make single-sex schools co-educational. I strongly suspect that the hon. Gentleman is primarily concerned with those cases where a trust deed prescribes that a school should be a grammar school.
Under the operation of this Bill it shall be required that the school shall become part of a comprehensive system. That is what really concerns the hon. Member. He is concerned solely with the preservation of grammar schools. That is very clear from what he has said. Time and again in Committees we had to face wrecking amendments. This is yet another of the same type.
Last night the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) congratulated his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford on a recent speech and suggested, rather tongue-in-cheek, I


thought, that it marked the conversion of the hon. Member for Chelmsford to the doctrine of comprehensive education. I intervened to point out that the hon. Member for Chelmsford had repeated time and again in Committee the belief that comprehensive education was all right as long as there were grammar schools alongside comprehensive schools. In other words a non-selective system is splendid as long as there is selection within it. That is what he believes, but how he comes to believe it I do not know. How he can argue that a non-selective system is all right as long as there is selection in it, and at the same time claim that he is talking sense and not nonsense is quite beyond me. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby is putting forward the same proposition today. He has no objection to the Bill as long as certain grammar schools can be preserved. Of course I must reject that suggestion totally.
The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby dealt also with Amendment No. 60 which prohibits the submission of proposals under Clause 2 by a local education authority to cease to maintain a voluntary school, or the submission of proposals by the governors to make a significant change in the character of that school if implementation of the proposals would be inconsistent with any trust deed regulating the school. That is clearly a wrecking amendment. He is proposing that a trust deed, no matter how old, should take precedence over the educational and social needs of the nation in the late twentieth century. That proposal would prohibit the submission of proposals by an authority which ceases to maintain a voluntary school if the trust deed requires the trustees to provide such a school—that is, if it were required that they should provide a grammar school. That is what is at the heart of this proposal.
The hon. Member is trying desperately to keep a rigid head and not nod in agreement, because he knows that he has been caught with his pants down. This amendment would be capricious, and would entirely turn upon the details of historic trust deeds. It would be unpredictable and inequitable in the sense that it would preserve, up and down the realm,

grammar schools within an otherwise non-selective system.
The amendment, like the new clause, is totally unacceptable to the Government. The basic principle the Opposition seem to accept here is that historic trust deeds should be the tail that wags the dog of the educational system.
The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) has tried for many years to demonstrate that his liberal principles are somewhat compatible with the illiberal principles of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and the hon. Member for Chelmsford. This is all to do with the comprehensive principle. The new clause and the amendment strike at the root of that principle. That is what they are designed to do, and therefore they are wrecking amendments. I must ask the House to reject them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That was an extremely interesting exchange of views. I congratulate the protagonists in that quite rivetting argument. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he deployed the technical and legal arguments which lie behind the new clause and the amendment. It is a technical and legal point involved in the first place, and no one in this House could better the manner in which it was propounded by my hon. Friend.
Behind the technicalities, important as they are, lies a vital issue of principle, and that is not, as the Minister of State seems to think, the issue of comprehensive versus non-comprehensive schools. The issue of principle here is whether voluntary schools, which have historically enjoyed their rights and independence, are to be take over in practice by the Secretary of State and by his instrument, the Department of Education and Science. That is a much wider point of principle than how a school is to be organised, because the powers which voluntary schools have are two-fold. They are the power over their own organisation and the power over the curriculum. The Secretary of State proposes to take away 50 per cent. of their autonomy, and it is only a matter of time before the other 50 per cent. goes as well.
This technical amendment is designed to preserve the autonomy of these schools in so far as can be done by respecting the trust deeds. This is necessary because


although it was a Conservative Government who introduced provisions on trust deeds in the 1973 Act, these were introduced in totally different circumstances in which the rights of voluntary schools were not under threat, but were being meticulously observed. In fact, I gave an express assurance myself on behalf of the Secretary of State at the time that these rights would be observed.
It is not a matter of ancient, out-of-date trusts, as the Minister of State has contemptuously called them. It is quite a different matter and it goes to the roots of the education system. The first people on the educational scene in Britain were the Churches. They undertook the education of people long before the State

intervened, and these trusts represented the wishes and sacrifices of earlier generations who assumed this responsibility when the Government was unable or unwilling to undertake it. We are trying to keep faith with the voluntary schools to avoid the worst results of this Bill, which will upset that very delicate settlement involving the voluntary schools, the local authorities, and the Government brought in by Lord Butler, a great and constructive Secretary of State. It is our intention to press this matter to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 304.

Division No. 265.]
AYES
[8.01 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Aitken, Jonathan
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Alison, Michael
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hurd, Douglas


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Elliott, Sir William
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Arnold, Tom
Emery, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Eyre, Reginald
James David


Awdry, Daniel
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Baker, Kenneth
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jessel, Toby


Banks, Robert
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Jopling, Michael


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Benyon, W.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kaufman, Gerald


Biffen, John
Forman, Nigel
Kershaw, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Kilfedder, James


Blaker, Peter
Fox, Marcus
Kimball, Marcus


Body, Richard
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fry, Peter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bottomley, Peter
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Kirk, Sir Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gardiner, George (Reigate
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Brittan, Leon
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Knox, David


Brotherton, Michael
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lamont, Norman


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Lane, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodhart, Philip
Lawrence, Ivan


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
Lawson, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Goodlad, Alastair
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John
Lloyd, Ian


Burden, F. A.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Loveridge, John


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Luce, Richard


Carson, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gray, Hamish
McCrindle, Robert


Channon, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon
Macfarlane, Neil


Churchill, W. S.
Grist, Ian
MacGregor, John


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grylls, Michael
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hall, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Clark, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Clegg, Walter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madel, David


Cockcroft, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hannam, John
Marten, Neil


Cope, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mates, Michael


Cordle, John H.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mather, Carol


Cormack, Patrick
Hastings, Stephen
Maude, Angus


Costain, A. P.
Havers, Sir Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Critchley, Julian
Hawkins, Paul
Mawby, Ray


Crouch, David
Hayhoe, Barney
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Crowder, F. P.
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mayhew, Patrick


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Heseltine, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hicks, Robert
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Holland, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Moate, Roger


Dunlop, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Molyneaux, James


Durant, Tony
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Monro, Hector




Montgomery, Fergus
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Stokes, John


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stradling Thomas, J.


More, Jesper (Ludlow)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter


Morgan, Geraint
Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rifkind, Malcolm
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tebbit, Norman


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Mudd, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Neave, Airey
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Trotter, Neville


Nelson, Anthony
Royle, Sir Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Neubert, Michael
Sainsbury, Tim
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Newton, Tony
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Normanton, Tom
Scott, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Nott, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wakeham, John


Onslow, Cranley
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Osborn, John
Shepherd, Colin
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shersby, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sivester, Fred
Walters, Dennis


Paisley, Rev Ian
Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Parkinson, Cecil
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Percival, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spence, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Prior, Rt Hon James
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Raison, Timothy
Sproat, Iain
Younger, Hon George


Rathbone, Tim
Stainton, Keith



Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stanley, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Mr. Jim Lester.


Renton, Rt. Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Corbett, Robin
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Atlaun, Frank
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Freeson, Reginald


Anderson, Donald
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Freud, Clement


Archer, Peter
Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cronin, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Ashley, Jack
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Gilbert, Dr John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cryer, Bob
Ginsburg, David


Atkinson, Norman
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Golding, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Gould, Bryan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davidson, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bates, Alf
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bean, R. E.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grocott, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Harper, Joseph


Bidwell, Sydney
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bishop, E. S.
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boardman, H.
Doig, Peter
Hatton, Frank


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dormand, J. D.
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Heffer, Eric S.


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dunn, James A.
Hooley, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack
Hooson, Emlyn


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Horam, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm'H)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Edge, Geoff
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Edwards Robert (Wolv SE)
Huckfield, Les


Buchan, Norman
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Buchanan, Richard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
English, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ennals, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hunter, Adam


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, John (Newton)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Carmichael, Nell
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Carter, Ray
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Cartwright, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Janner, Greville


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Clemitson, Ivor
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Flannery, Martin
John, Brynmor


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jones, Barry (East Fllnt)


Concannon, J. D.
Ford, Ben
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Conlan, Bernard
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kaufman, Gerald







Kelley, Richard
Ogden, Eric
Stoddart, David


Karr, Russell
O'Halloran, Michael
Stott, Roger


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Orbach, Maurice
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Neil
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Lambie, David
Ovenden, John
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lamborn, Harry
Owen, Dr David
Swain, Thomas


Lamond, James
Padley, Walter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Leadbitter, Ted
Pardoe, John
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lee, John
Park, George
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Parker, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N. Devon)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pearl, Rt Hon Fred
Tierney, Sydney


Lipton, Marcus
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


Litterick, Tom
Phipps, Dr Colin
Tomlinson, John


Lomas, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Tomney, Frank


Loyden, Eddie
Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


Luard, Evan
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Tuck, Raphael


Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Price, William (Rugby)
Urwin, T. W.


McCartney, Hugh
Radice, Giles
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


MacKenzie, Gregor
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Maclennan, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn
Ward, Michael


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Watkins, David


Madden, Max
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Watkinson, John


Magee, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.
Weetch, Ken


Mahon, Simon
Roper, John
Weitzman, David


Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Rose, Paul B.
Wellbeloved, James


Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Marquand, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
White, James (Pollok)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rowlands, Ted
Whitehead, Phillip


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sandelson, Neville
Whitlock, William


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sedgemore, Brian
Wigley, Dafydd


Maynard, Miss Joan
Selby, Harry
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Meacher, Michael
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Mendelson, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Mikardo, Ian
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Millan, Bruce
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Silverman, Julius
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Moonman, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Small, William
Woof, Robert


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Snape, Peter



Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Spearing, Nigel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Newens, Stanley
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Noble, Mike
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. Ted Graham.


Oakes, Gordon
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 58

VOUCHER SCHEMES

"On request from a local education authority, the Secretary of State shall authorise the establishment of a schools voucher scheme devised and run by the local education authority in question, on an experimental basis, for a period of time agreed to by the Secretary of State and the authority. During this period of time the Secretary of State shall monitor the results of such an experimental voucher scheme".— [Dr. Boyson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.15 p.m.

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It may help our debate if I explain what the clause says before anybody pre-

tends that it says something else. The clause makes it clear that a voucher experiment would be introduced only at the request of a local education authority. Authorisation for an experiment would be given by the Secretary of State for a limited period and there would be a continuing assessment of what was being achieved by the experiment.
All this is the opposite to the way in which the Bill works. Despite all the frothy talk of participation and local democracy from hon. Members opposite, the Bill gives no local options. Direction comes from the centre, and there is no monitoring or assessment of the question whether a switch to a totally comprehensive scheme is successful; it is a case of driving on regardless.
The clause encourages elected local democracy, and some authorities have


more recent mandates than that held by the Government.
The continuance of the voucher experiment would depend upon the success or failure of the monitoring. Under the Bill, there may be a decline in academic standards after comprehensive reorganisation, which will be ignored without the evidence that can be provided by monitoring.
There is considerable disquiet in many areas, particularly in our inner cities, about standards of academic education and discipline. There is concern about literacy and numeracy. The Bullock Committee reported that where tests could be applied, they indicated academic decline.
A report of the May conference of the National Association of Head Teachers —which represents about 60 per cent. of head teachers—indicates that teachers are becoming increasingly disturbed by the growing rate of hooliganism and truancy. This concern was recognised by the Secretary of State on 21st June, when he told a conference of 15 organisations representing teachers, local authorities and welfare workers that disruption was now on such a national scale that there would have to be an investigation.
This is not a case of exaggeration by hon. Members on the Opposite Benches. It is recognised by the classroom teachers' organisations, local authorities, and even the Secretary of State.
There is also concern in many areas that, far from resulting in the new Jerusalem, the introduction of comprehensive education has replaced one form of selection for another. It used to be the 11-plus; now it is the ability to buy a home or get a council house in the area of a good school. This selection on the basis of ability to get a home in a certain neighbourhood causes despair and alarm among those who find themselves on the wrong side of a neighbourhood line.
In my constituency people who wish to sell their houses advertise the names of schools if they feed into three particularly good comprehensive schools. But if they feed into three other comprehensive schools, there is no mention of the names. This situation affects the prices of houses in the area.
The name William Tyndale may come across accidentally or intentionally in this debate. Many parents feel that large local government organisations—indeed, large schools at times—are not responsive to their concern about their children's schools. They feel that when dealing with large local education authorities, nobody cares for them and that they have no means, apart from massive political organisation, of influencing the decisions made at county halls.
In county halls we have officials—often, elected councillors—working for their OBEs and CBEs and peace in retirement. They are not bleeding every night, as they should be, about the standards in our schools. Their main concern is that nobody should rock the boat, so that they can go along quite happily. The degree of ulcers from which they suffer is not high compared with what it would be if they saw what was happening in schools on the fringes of their empires.
There is also the feeling—in many cases justified—that the heads of large schools—they are not necessarily all bad; I say that before the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) suggests that I am making them out to be cowboys and Indians—find that they have little time to timetable and run their schools as they would wish, with the interests of the individual child and what he needs in mind.
Despite the claim that there will be vast curriculum opportunities, there are often fewer opportunities than in the small schools that the large schools have replaced. I have referred to this matter before. The timetables and curricula in many big comprehensive schools in London give less choice than was given in the secondary modern and grammar schools that they have replaced. I do not accuse the people involved; it is a question of the difficulty of working in those large organisations.
The Labour Party, like all parties, is made up of good and bad men and women. I hope that we are all mostly good men and women. But when hon. Members on the Government Benches revolt against certain establishments, they little realise that new bureaucratic establishments will replace them. Unlike Don Quixote, who was wont to tilt at


windmills, hon. Gentlemen opposite knock them down and find bigger windmills behind. Instead of moving to a freer society, they find more repression of the individuals within it.
I instance the William Tyndale School. The people who are most concerned about standards are ordinary people outside this place. This is a test to discover who believes in people. [Interruption.] It is obvious that blood is being drawn. There is no épée wired to the electricity in this matter; this is a genuine point on which I have touched.
Ordinary people outside are more concerned about their children than anybody else. I find it surprising that I should have to say that. Parents are more concerned than the bureaucrats who merely want to balance the numbers in schools. I have lived with this problem for years. They just want to balance the numbers. They do not want some schools to be too good, because they show up other schools that are not so good. One is rebuked if one's school is the opposite of the William Tyndale school and heavily oversubscribed, because that situation embarrasses other schools and upsets the system.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was speaking to New Clause 58, but what he has said so far—he has said a lot—has no conceivable connection with that clause. I wonder when he will be getting to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take it that this is the preamble and that the hon. Gentleman will be getting rapidly to the new clause.

Dr. Boyson: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may help the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) to understand that this is the preamble explaining why the voucher is necessary. Obviously hon. Gentlemen opposite are worried when facts are put before them which they want hidden from the Press and public. There is no doubt that blood is being drawn.

Mr. Spearing: Mr. Spearing rose—

Dr. Boyson: I must get on, or I shall be accused of filibustering. If the bureaucrats, the school administrators

en masse, could be relied upon to do the best for each child, we should not need parental choice. The view of human nature held by hon. Members opposite is astonishing. We are offered a new promised land. Apparently we are in a pre-Garden of Eden situation. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I have not yet made myself understood. Administrators want the schools to be balanced. Anyone who does not know that does not know schools. The schools also want well-run timetables. They will make exceptions for very few individuals. The only people who see children as children are parents.

Mr. Spearing: No.

Dr. Boyson: I see that on one side we are speaking of bureaucracy and on the other side of people. At least we have defined our terms. I realise now why we have the two red lines. They define the width of the crevice between us.

Mr. Spearing: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how many choices were available as distinct courses in the third year at the school where he was headmaster? The comprehensive school at which I had the privilege of teaching had 13 separate courses in the third year. If that was possible then, why is it not possible now?

Dr. Boyson: I should not like to delay matters. I can recommend a book called "Oversubscribed", which tells the story of Highbury Grove. The hon. Gentleman will find it a fascinating book and may wish to give copies to his hon. Friends as Christmas presents.
I am delighted that there are schools with the wide choice suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but we must legislate for the average school which is not giving that choice. I have no doubt that, with the hon. Gentleman's influence, that choice would exist, and I am sure that wherever I had responsibility that choice would exist. But in certain areas we can name schools on results, as we probably shall, where there is not that choice.
The William Tyndale story came to light not because the Labour governors did what they could to bring it to light—all credit to them for doing what they did—but because parents took their


children away, as they did not like that school.
In two terms the number of pupils tell from 213 to 96. The situation was known two years before ILEA, the administrators and the bureaucrats dealt with the situation. The parents took their children away from the William Tyndale School. Fortunately, at that time, by chance, there were vacancies in other schools in Islington. Vacancies may not exist in other areas. I know of cases which are similar to the William Tyndale School. However, as a result of pressures on schools parents cannot move their children to other schools.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the voucher system would have helped the William Tyndale School and how an over-subscribed school would cope with the many voucher applications that were made to it?

Dr. Boyson: I shall come to vouchers. [Interruption.] Government supporters must not get excited as we approach the kernel of the argument.
The voucher system would have helped the situation created in Islington as a result of the incidents at the William Tyndale School. Under the voucher system parents will be able to say where they will place their children. For instance, a good school may be heavily over-subscribed, and a bad school may be heavily under-subscribed. I may mention the names of other secondary schools in Islington, if required. At present, a bad school is guaranteed a conscript audience. If only 120 parents out of 240 refused to place their children in one school until the headship was changed, the deficiences of the school would be obvious under the voucher system.
I do not suggest that there should be a vast expansion of the first school's buildings. When the deficiences of a school come to light, parents may say: "We shall not send our children to that school; we shall set up our own school". That happened in Islington. For two years in succession, 50 parents took their children away from school, and each put £2 in the kitty and employed a retired teacher to teach their children until the ILEA was shamed to put those children

into another school. Under the voucher system, another school might be set up. The old school would be empty. [HON. MEMBERS: "That would be chaos."] I prefer chaos to dictatorship.
As a result of the process to which I have referred, the poor school would be empty. The deputy head from the over-subscribed school might be put in by the local authority to run the other school. For the past 10 years many parents did not want to send their children to the school that I named. If those parents had set up their own school under the voucher system they might have shamed the authority into doing something

Sir G. Sinclair: The question is not what the hon. Gentleman's proposed voucher system would have done in the William Tyndale School situation; the question is, what good would it have done to the children? That is the point. If, in the end, the parents withdrew their children, that would have done some good, in that the school would either have been closed or improved rapidly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is unfair to the Chair that an intervention should be made in reply to an intervention from another hon. Member.

Dr. Boyson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
The voucher is a means of increasing the choice and control of schools by parents. That is the way in which the education system should go.
In the war, bread was rationed because flour was limited. The Government did not set up State bakeries and require everyone to buy their flour or loaves from that bakery. They gave coupons to people with which they might buy bread from a bakery that provided the kind of loaf that they wanted. The same principle applies to the voucher system. The quality of the bread provided by the bakeries was controlled by inspectors. The same kind of control applies to the voucher system.
The Opposition say that every child should have his chance at school. We also say that he should have his chance at a good school. We propose giving coupons or vouchers to the parents so that their children may be educated in


the schools of their choice. The inspectorate will guarantee that the schools maintain minimum standards. That represents a gain.
Eighteen months ago, the voucher for a primary school pupil would have amounted to £155 and for a secondary school pupil £265. The sixth-form voucher would have been £360. Presumably, inflation must be taken into account.
The introduction of the voucher scheme would achieve four objects. It would get rid of the worst schools because parents would take their children out of those schools. It is the children who matter. Under the voucher scheme, the pupils could leave the poor school, and the parents could set up their own voluntary schools and run them as cooperatives, or in other ways. I do not mind which system is adopted as long as the schools give the education required by the children.
The William Tyndale School would have disappeared two years ago. There would have been no need for the expenditure of large sums of money by the ILEA if there had been the means of immediate response provided by the voucher scheme.
Secondly, I sometimes wonder whether the fear of Government supporters is that such a system would strengthen the individual and the family against the State. I wonder whether it is that political aspect that frightens them. They like to increase the powers of the State against the individual. They are not worried about the family and the child. They want a tidier system, run by bureaucrats in Whitehall, whereas to adopt our proposal would mean power passing back from the State to the individual.
Thirdly, it is likely that the adoption of our proposal would mean increased variety. There could be a greater variety of schools than we have at the moment. I do not mind free schools, disciplined schools, or whatever parents want, so long as they want their children to go to them and so long as Her Majesty's inspectors guarantee minimum standards. The adoption of our proposal could mean a greater variety in the system than exists at present and would exist under a comprehensive system.
Fourthly, all the evidence from the Plowden Report onwards is that pupils

do well in a school when they know that they have the backing of the home, and they will get that backing only if parents agree with the philosophy and the running of the school. That is the advantage of the public schools—and in saying that I do not want it thought that I am being at all elitist, because I attended a State school, as did my children, and I got my teaching experience in State schools. But there is a great advantage in having pupils in a school that has been chosen by their parents because it has the same values as those that exist in the homes of its pupils, with the result that the parents and the school work together.

Mr. Christopher Price: It is interesting to listen to these crackpot ideas for the second time. The hon. Gentleman is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Do these ideas represent the official policy of the Conservative Party, or are they his own?

Dr. Boyson: I am speaking to the new clause and airing my own views. We shall see a little later what are the views of my hon. Friends on this issue.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) will be interested to know that my hon. Friend speaks not only for the whole Conservative Party but for everyone who values the education of his children.

Mr. Spearing: He does not speak for me.

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton).
I am not claiming that the idea of an education voucher will solve all our education problems. It has nothing to do with the Second Coming or with the New Jerusalem. It is purely a means of improving parental control of schools and standards of discipline in them. Bearing in mind the present state of many of our schools, it is about time that we had some improvement along these lines.
It is obvious that Government supporters prefer a monolithic system, because they do not believe that parents have the ability to choose. They can choose Labour Party members in elections, but they cannot choose the schools to which they wish to send their children.


I am glad to say that that kind of arrogance does not exist on this side of the House. We say that parents are well able to choose for themselves, whereas Government supporters feel that the man in Whitehall knows best—unless, of course, they are worried about what parents would choose if they had the choice and found well-disciplined and properly controlled schools for their children. We believe that that is the desire of most parents.
The arrogance of Government supporters leads them to make accusations that often replace the need for thought. They are very fond of using such words as "elitist". Let me remind them where the idea of a voucher system originated. I remember that we used to hear a great deal of criticism of Milton Friedman, though many now accept his monetarist beliefs. The idea of a voucher system came from such people as Christopher Jenks, Sugarman and Coons. On the one occasion the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) described the State system as being like the Truck Acts. In an article in The Guardian about three years ago, his approach to the idea of a voucher system was very different from what it is today. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West would be consistent in his views and that he would rise to agree with me. I have a copy of The Guardian article, and I am prepared to send him a copy of it. I have thought about it before. The hon. Member said that the present system resembles the Truck Acts, where money was taken away and given back in kind. It was that aspect that led me to support the voucher system.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The voucher system is a type of educational Green Shield stamp. Can my hon. Friend say—since the voucher can be used for any schools, even those outside the system such as public or direct grant schools—how much a voucher is likely to be worth?

Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would not say that vouchers are like Green Shield stamps, but they are life stamps that will better fulfil the educational lives of children. Whether they should be available only for State schools

or to independent schools must be worked out locally. The question whether vouchers should be taxed is another aspect to be examined. There are hundreds of ways of operating such a system. I suggest that hon. Members on the Government Benches set up a study group to examine the matter. I should be delighted to help.
Hon. Members opposite say that the system would be elitist, but when the system was first introduced in America a certain amount of money was given to deprived areas. The idea of pouring money into schools to which people do not want to go has not worked in this country, except in one area. In America, $250 worth of vouchers was added for each child from families whose incomes were half the national average. The actual voucher was worth about $1,000, but for those children whose families earned half the national income the voucher was worth $1,250. For the first time, schools clamoured for those children to attend, because they brought with them more money for the teachers to spend on equipment. That shows how the system can be used to the advantage of the deprived and ghetto areas.
I take my final illustration from the American elections. Hispanics and blacks in New York want the education voucher to be used in their areas because they believe that the system is not working. I quote from a statement by the Democratic Party platform on 20th May. It said:
We propose that every parent whose child attends a failing school should be granted a voucher which represents the total amount of money expended for a child's education in New York. … The voucher is the only way open for black and Hispanic parents whose children have been consistently failed by the State system.
We shall see later whether that becomes part of the platform of the Democratic Party. The system is not élitist, despite what hon. Members on the Government Benches say. The demand is coming from the deprived groups.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I came in out of interest to learn about the voucher system as the hon. Gentleman saw it. I have learnt nothing so far. The hon. Gentleman says that the system is being asked for by the deprived groups in America. He has


proved no such thing. It has been suggested by the Democratic Party's education group. Can the hon. Gentleman give any proof that the deprived groups are seeking such a system?

Dr. Boyson: The statement I read was not from the Democratic Party but from a black leader asking for the system. I shall put a copy in the Library, so that the knowledge may go further. Those who deny what I have said can read the facts. If Labour Members refuse to read facts, we are in a worse state than I thought.
To improve schools we must increase choice. I do not mind people having the choice and sending their children to public schools, as long as other people have the same choice. I do not like choice being cut down. I want a system that gives increasing choice to all people, from top to bottom in our society. In the secondary modern-grammar school system there was only 20 per cent. choice. In the neighbourhood comprehensive system there is no choice. The voucher system would expand choice. It would not solve everything, but it would move in that direction.

Mr. Noble: We had an argument in Committee about choice and the cost of implementing it, particularly where parents have to arrange for the transport of their children to another school. The hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said then that the parents would have to meet the cost if they chose to send their children to another school. Having to pay the fares would deprive many working-class families of the opportunity to take advantage of such a system. Have the hon. Gentleman and his party reconsidered that? Have they changed their minds on the cost of transport?

Dr. Boyson: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is moving to the de-details of the voucher system, having accepted the principle. That is a considerable advance. It could be said that the voucher had to include the cost of transport and that the school should then meet that cost. That is done by many independent schools in London, and it happens in America. If one accepts the principle one then makes everything else fit. People can always find detailed objections when they do not like an idea.
The Labour Party is in favour of a monolithic system over the length and breadth of the country, irrespective of the wishes of areas such as Tameside, where councillors were elected on an issue and their policies were swept overboard.
We are merely suggesting a limited number of experiments where local authorities wish to try them. Five or six experiments would be ample. They would be monitored, and if they were found to be failures after, say, five years, nothing more would be done. If the system seemed a worthwhile advance, we should go further. The Bill says that a certain system is to go on whether or not it is a failure, as it is in many areas.
Last night, two Bills were linked in one guillotine motion. One related to tied cottages and the other to the tied neighbourhood school. I do not understand agricultural matters, but I am assured by some of my hon. Friends that tied cottages are necessary for the continuance of agriculture.
Hon. Members on the Government Benches want a comprehensive system to be applied in all areas. They say that they believe in freedom, yet they do not believe in people being able to contract out of the comprehensive system. The way in which they speak this evening will show which side of the House genuinely believes in freedom.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already sat down.

Miss Margaret Jackson: It would be wise for me to remind the House that this new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish an experimental voucher scheme and to monitor its results. Although the hon. Member for Brent North (Dr. Boyson), as usual, made an interesting speech, one could not claim that he had been able to defend the new clause.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated all of his argument on the claim that this scheme, or any voucher scheme, increases freedom of choice. When questioned, to a small extent, on the details of the scheme, he responded by saying that anyone who was opposed to this kind of scheme was not interested in freedom of choice and that anyone interested in freedom of choice must be in favour of


the scheme. That is a fairly sweeping claim which deserves a little examination.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite always defend their educational ideas, whatever they may happen to be, on the ground that they give greater freedom of choice. Almost invariably that claim fails to stand up to closer examination, and that is certainly the case with this scheme. All of us on both sides of the House recognise that in the educational world there are popular and unpopular schools. Equally I think we all recognise—I am sure that not even the hon. Member for Brent, North would seek to deny this—that this judgment is often somewhat unsound and even where it is sound, an unpopular school can become popular overnight with a particular change of headship or with the introduction of a new course.
But the basic idea that everyone will have freedom of choice if he can opt for the most popular school does not stand up even to a momentary examination. As the hon. Member for Brent, North made plain, not every child would be able to be accommodated in the most popular schools. Some children therefore, would have to go to the less popular schools. Precisely what happens then? The hon. Gentleman suggested that this would not be the case because, ultimately, popular schools would thrive and unpopular schools would die out. The logic of that approach is that if we had a very popular school we could simply build a new wing to accommodate the extra children. That argument is difficult to defend economically in times such as we are now facing.
We also have to consider what happens if the decline which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, indeed advocating, should take place. What happens if an unpopular school has a change of head, or a change of course, and suddenly becomes popular again? What happens in the popular school if a lot of the popularity is due to the headship and leadership of one particular person who leaves the school and the school then becomes unpopular? We would have a sort of yo-yo situation. We might end up with schools, on to which one had built extensions, which become successively full and empty, or we could have schools on to which extensions had

been built at various times to accommodate various fluctuations in demand.
Even if the hon. Gentleman's argument really works and the popular schools thrive and the unpopular schools decline in the fullness of time and then something happens in the popular school which made it less popular, what happens then? We could get a situation where an area was gradually denuded of schools as one after another closed because everyone wished to go to only one school. If that one school lost its popularity, what choice would parents have then?

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Surely the dilemma that the hon. Lady poses is resolved by considering whether one is concerned with securing maximum use of educational plant or the best interests of the children whom that plant is intended to serve.

Miss Jackson: No, that is not the point at all. The hon. Member's scheme specifically provides that only if a school becomes popular will it thrive. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman did not agree with me that sometimes judgments about popularity are unsound, but I think that he will find that in the educational world as a whole it is recognised that it can be very much a matter of bad information and even of fashion which school becomes popular and which is less so—

Dr. Boyson: No.

Miss Jackson: Then we shall have to agree to disagree about that.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Is not the basic fallacy which underlies this argument the fact that an Opposition who continually clamour for cuts in public expenditure know that this scheme can work only if there is an excess of school provision and accommodation? Is not this whole debate phoney when the Opposition are seeking to limit educational expenditure?

Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is quite correct. I suggest—

Dr. Boyson: We are faced at present with a falling birth rate and vacancies in schools. Without vouchers, will the administrative mind, which does not believe in parents' choice, close old schools which are over-subscribed and


keep open their glass and concrete monstrosities because there is a loan debt?

Miss Jackson: The point which comes out of everything that the hon. Gentleman says is that we would not have the kind of chaos which would ensue if his system were taken to its logical conclusion because that chaos would ensue only if there were the real freedom of choice which he suggests will emerge from this scheme. I think that he will find on examining the details of the scheme more closely that this so-called full freedom of parental choice is largely illusory.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith (East Grinstead) rose—

Miss Jackson: May I go on a little longer? It is difficult to sustain the thread of an argument when one is interrupted after every sentence.
The hon. Member for Brent, North claims that there will be a decline in population and that we may have surplus schools. It depends how one makes one's judgment, but it seems to me that we would do better, instead of telling people that they may shuffle about from one place to another, to use the opportunity, if we were ever to have a considerable surplus of places in our schools, to close down some of the many unsatisfactory old buildings which exist in many areas.

Dr. Boyson: The parents may want them.

Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman must be as aware as I am that if children are in very old and unsatisfactory buildings, very few of their parents wish them to continue there.
There are not only problems with the provision of buildings in this scheme; there are also practical problems such as fluctuations of staff—the kind of problems beside which our present difficulties in allocation of school places would fade into insignificance.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is asking only for an experimental scheme rather than for a full one, but unless he can justify his experiment in much more depth, it would be a disaster for the children involved.

Dr. Boyson: William Tyndale was a disaster.

Miss Jackson: It is all very well the hon. Member referring to William Tyndale. The only two things he has been able to say to any questions by my hon. Friends have been "Freedom of choice!" and "William Tyndale!" That is not an adequate justification of a detailed experimental scheme of vouchers.
The hon. Gentleman argued that in the United States a voucher scheme may have value in providing positive discrimination in areas of great difficulty. Our education system is not the same as the education system in the United States. Here not only do we encourage local authorities to provide a school system which caters for the generality of pupils but we already encourage them within our existing system to make special provision for minorities with special needs or special disadvantages. We do not need a voucher scheme to encourage local authorities to do that. We do it already.
9.0 p.m.
Our main case against the proposal is that whatever advantages may be thought to be gained from an experimental voucher scheme are already available in this country without such a scheme. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) fairly suggested to the hon. Member for Brent, North that a voucher scheme would have made no difference to what happened at the William Tyndale School.
We oppose the hon. Gentleman's proposal because it is unnecessary under the system we have and it is bogus because it will not offer parents the freedom of choice which he suggests.
The whole basis of the hon. Gentleman's scheme is that parents will apply to the schools which are oversubscribed. At present, where schools are oversubscribed, the places are allocated on known, published criteria which try to deal fairly with the individual children concerned. In addition, where local authorities see a need which they cannot meet within their existing schools, they have power to allocate places outside the maintained sector. Increasingly, as we get genuine comprehensive schools, we are convinced that the full range of educational opportunities will be available within those schools.
One of the biggest differences between our system and that which the hon. Gentleman proposes is that, instead of the allocation being on rational or practical grounds, it would inevitably be on an irrational basis. It would depend on the speed and ruthlessness of the parents, or it would depend, as in one American case which has been quoted, on the luck of the draw.

Dr. Hampson: There are a great many variations of the voucher scheme. The hon. Lady has been putting forward arguments which could be marshalled against a certain number of voucher scheme experiments, but she has not told the House why the Government object to supporting an experiment which might lay at rest either her ideas or those of my hon. Friend.

Miss Jackson: That is not true. I have told the House that the idea the hon. Gentleman put forward for a voucher scheme is completely bogus. I have also argued that it is not justified. If hon. Gentlemen feel that I am not adequately meeting the arguments on the details of the scheme, that may be because the hon. Member for Brent, North did not put any.
To return to what happens when vouchers are issued, to be fair, they should all be issued simultaneously, otherwise parents with telephones and parents with cars who can more quickly get in contact with the local education authority will be the parents who get their children into the oversubscribed schools. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has in mind that it will be like the replies which are sent in to radio and television programmes, when everyone writes in simultaneously and on a given day the envelopes are opened and the first hundred are successful. That is not a satisfactory method of allocating school places.
I suggest that the voucher scheme would not give the majority of parents any greater real choice than they already have. In addition, it would lead to inefficiency and waste and to the general disruption of what we all say we are trying to achieve, which is the raising of the standard of education of every school in the country to that of the best. That, to me, is the strongest argument against the proposal.
We should not be trying to find yet another way to sort out the sheep from the goats, with the sheep going to a good school and the other condemned, as inevitably some would be under the hon. Gentleman's system, to a school with a bad reputation, which would inevitably get worse. Under his proposal for good and bad schools, the bad schools are supposed to get worse. They are supposed to get so bad that, in the end, either parental demand or the education authority closes them down altogether.
What happens to the children who are at those schools during that year? Anyone can say that no child should be in a bad school, but the system that is proposed would involve badly served schools in ever worsening conditions.
The worst thing about the logic of this proposal is that it does not try to raise the standards of the worst schools but suggests that they will simply fade away. Presumably the fading away will include the education of the children who are unlucky to be in them at that time.
The hon. Member for Brent, North said that every child should have his chance at a good school. I agree with that, but that should happen because every school is a good school, not because some children have a good chance to be in a decent school and the rest have to put up with wherever else they can be placed.
I quote the words of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who on 13th December 1975 said:
to those who cry caution"—
he was talking about the voucher system—
I would add my own voice. The initial, most likely, prospect is that far too many children's parents will opt for the most popular school. The only way, then, to decide who goes where will be, in effect, by pulling names out of a hat, hardly the most scientific method of selection for schools. Disappointed parents who have been led to believe that they would have a real choice which would be implemented will then turn on those who have so blatantly misled them.
Meanwhile, what happens to the schools where the good teachers are leaving in droves? Standards there will be spiralling downwards with fewer teachers and less money. In theory, new gleaming, popular schools to take their places should be opening up under new management. This is of course quite impracticable. Moreover, fashion in schools and head teachers in any particular area changes


rapidly. … it can change overnight. In contrast, the supply of schools is highly inelastic: it takes a long time to establish a new school in response to parents' wishes. And in the meantime, numerous children will be condemned to a school and an education of a far lower standard than they would otherwise have received.
The right hon. Gentleman concluded:
The voucher system needs to be examined with a healthy degree of scepticism.
The Conservative Party has moved on from the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman, and it seems that since he stepped down from the high office that he once enjoyed in our councils he has frequently said much that contains a great deal more sense. The passages that I have quoted seem to be among those that contain more sense.
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is a devotee of what he considers to be a better approximation of freedom of choice. I am aware that he is a devotee of parental influence. There is nothing intrinsically harmful in either of those concepts, but I suggest in all sincerity that he should consider carefully whether the scheme that he is advocating, which perhaps many of his hon. Friends will be advocating tonight, will genuinely increase parental choice, will genuinely increase freedom for parents and provide a better education for the majority of children.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is making a great mistake. His party will be making a great mistake if it advocates and takes up the system he has proposed. It would end up with a system perhaps even worse than the 11-plus, when children were sent to "sink" schools with the purpose that those schools should decline. If that is the way that the right hon. Gentleman wants to educate the sort of electorate that we need, and if that is a proposal to which the great party of which he is a member is to be attached, I advise him in all sincerity to think again. I believe that he and his hon. Friends are making a great mistake.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said and it seems that she has been too powerful in her condemnation of this idea. I think she should concede that the use of the voucher would produce early evidence of the need

for correction and improvement in a school as a result of the choice of the parents. That would signal the need for improvement in standards, resulting in an earlier improvement in the standard of the school.

Miss Jackson: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got the idea that the only thing that makes people realise that not everything is going well in a given school is the fact that parents no longer wish to send their children there.
What I said earlier was that I accept fully that there are popular and unpopular schools. I do not accept that is always justified as a judgment; it may be so in some cases. However, the main point between us is whether the hon. Gentleman's proposals would raise the general standard of the education service in those less popular schools or, alternatively, offer the majority of parents a chance to get their child into a more popular school. Even on those grounds the scheme would not be likely to succeed. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful for this opportunity to air some of my own reservations about the voucher scheme and to demonstrate that there is a catholicity of view among Opposition Members. I believe that empirical evidence about the voucher scheme in any form will show that the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), which were admirably conceived, would not achieve the results for which he hopes.
I should like briefly to offer a few reasons why I think that we are right to cast doubts on this idea. The way to proceed, with medium cost to public funds, would be to limit it to one experiment in a rural area that is appropriately chosen and one in an urban area, rather than to go to the lengths of five or six experiments, for reasons of cost, if for no other reason. I believe that if we were to do this it would import too much of the market mechanism into education. I am a great believer in the market mechanism, but I do not believe that education is the right sphere of life in which to try to enforce such theories. I do not believe that parental choice should be taken to the length of being compared, say, to


the rights of people to Diners' Club cards or abonnement rights on ski lifts. That is an analogy that comes to mind.
In schools in urban and suburban areas it would create vicious circles of standards and conditions of education. What is more, it would set up a vicious circle of reputation in those schools. A number of embattled teachers in schools with a difficult or bad reputation would find the situation difficult to cope with. They would have to fight against the tide of popular opinion—an opinion probably fanned by the local newspaper.
I am prepared to concede to my hon. Friends that the voucher experiment might make good schools slightly better. There would be an even greater parental involvement and commitment to the schools that were very much in demand, but it would make bad schools, or schools in need of improvement, unnecessarily worse. That consideration is my prime concern.
In these education debates we should be more concerned to raise the standards of those schools in need of improvement than to take our arguments further into structural considerations, to the detriment of content. However, I believe that it would make sense to introduce a voucher—and here I offer a shaded view—with regard to further education rights. I believe that one could introduce an experiment of this kind with vouchers that were cashable by anybody from the school leaving age of 16 up to the age of 66. That would be an interesting and imaginative extension of freedom.
9.15 p.m.
I believe also that it would bring us closer to the rather good idea that they have in France. It is called education permanente, and it gives greater and more frequent access to education and provides opportunities for developing personalities and skills in mid-career.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my hon. Friend tell us how these vouchers would be repaid?

Mr. Forman: I think it is possible that if vouchers were made available to people later in life or in mid-career they would be in a better position gradually to pay back the money to the State. The cost of the scheme could be provided on

the basis of an extended easy-term loan. This would be a sound idea for adult education without excessive cost to public expenditure.
In short, having lived in the United States, I believe that what is good for California or New York is not necessarily good for Britain. That applies to this matter as much as to a number of others. I can see that this idea might increase parental choice in ways that would serve only to frustrate it in the end. When the good schools in accessible neighbourhoods were all full up, greater frustration would be caused to those who could not obtain places because they had the illusion of freedom without being able to satisfy it.

Mr. Nick Badgen: Will my hon. Friend explain his argument that the least good schools would only get worse under the scheme?

Mr. Forman: The reason for making that assumption is that I think my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North was very honest in expressing his view when he said the logic of his position was that really bad schools would close down as a result of parents moving their children away from them and into better schools. It seems to me that this is an example of a drastic approach to education.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is exactly what it wants.

Mr. Forman: It might help the standards of good schools, but only at a high price to those schools that are in need of improvement. There are better ways of involving parents more fully in education, and in choice of education, whether it be by a prospectus, by annual reports or by some of the other ideas that we put forward in Committee and which I strongly support. If we want to increase parental choice, there are many ways of doing so, but as far as this experiment is concerned, the empirical evidence will show that it is a rather bad idea.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am thankful that some Opposition Members have their feet firmly on the ground, like the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), who has kept his sanity in educational policy, along with the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Hitherto this


debate has been conducted by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) on a wholly theoretical plane, which really does not have any connection whatever with the reality of providing buildings, teachers and equipment in schools.
What the country wants to know about the new clause is whether, as a matter of policy, the Conservative Party is in favour of introducing vouchers. If they are, I think that the teaching profession would like to know so that it could decide whether it wanted to support the idea and discuss it. Many parents would want to discuss it. I believe that the Conservatives are trying to have their cake and eat it. Throughout the Committee stage they made long speeches about vouchers, but we never heard from the official Conservative spokesman anything like a pledge that it was Conservative policy. It appears not to be. I see that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is conveniently absent at the moment.

Mr. Budgen: The proposal is for an experiment—not for a total commitment for all schools—to see whether our assertions prove right or whether the Government are right.

Mr. Price: I am aware that this proposal is for an experiment, but experimenting with inanimate objects like machines is one thing and experimenting with children's lives is something completely different. In order to start an experiment of this kind one would have to find a local education authority willing to undertake it and teachers who were willing to join in. I should be most surprised if the Conservatives could satisfy those requirements.

Mr. Mayhew: My local authority in Kent has already commissioned a feasibility study. The new clause is designed simply to put such a scheme into effect.

Mr. Price: I am aware of the Ashford experiment and have read a great deal about it. It involves only a feasibility study. I believe that when it reached the point of discussing the details with the teachers and the parents involved it would run on the rocks.
We have to take this opportunity of putting down the canard about the English secondary school system being in some way monolithic. If anything, the system

can be criticised for being not nearly monolithic enough. There is transfer under different authorities at every age between nine and 16. Our schools are more teacher-controlled—that was one of the problems at the William Tyndale School—than in any other country and our schools are therefore less monolithic than in any other country. If there are to be changes in our education system, we have reached a point at which we agreed ages of transfer rather than letting should be thinking about nationally-every education authority go its own way.
When the Conservatives talk about choice they are thinking of parents battling against one another to see who can secure the most privileged education system. When my right hon. and hon. Friends and I think about choice we think about the clearly enhanced choice that is available for the pupils. The choice within comprehensive schools today should be compared with the choice in those schools when they were secondary modern schools. There is a tremendous contrast between the present system and what existed 10 or 20 years ago. The choice in many comprehensive schools is enormously wider now than existed in grammar schools 10 or 15 years ago. Very often that choice was between three courses—a sort of science course, a sort of arts course, and something in between.
I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton that there is a strong case for thinking again about the way we run our further and higher education systems. Everybody pays taxes, but only a small minority get an enriched higher education. Apart from any grants, we spend up to £4,500 on each student in some subjects while others get nothing at all. That is the standing inequality in our system. It is that feature which we need to be rid of and that was what I was talking about in The Guardian article to which the hon. Member for Brent, North referred.
The voucher system in the compulsory stages of education for children between the ages of five and 16 can do nothing but compound, inequity, especially in such a class-ridden system as that in Great Britain, where we have a small minority of independent schools which, for various historic and other reasons, spend their time entrenching their privileges at the expense of other schools


in the community. If the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brent, North were a viable proposition, one would expect to be able to point to some area in the world where it had been not only experimented with—experiments have taken place in small areas of parts of districts of states in the United States—but taken up and proved successful.
I have seen a voucher system in operation in California, and I do not think that it would work anywhere else in the world. We are not even sure whether it is Conservative Party policy. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) says one thing and the hon. Member for Chelmsford, by his eloquent absence, says another.
We cannot chop and change in education. There is a period of about eight years between the planning of a new school and its establishment. The picture painted by the hon. Member for Brent, North of schools disappearing and coming into existence again, and going up and down like so much popcorn, bears no relation to reality. If hon. Members opposite had political sense as well as common educational sense, they would get off this band wagon as soon as possible.
Certain people who have written certain books in the United States are being deliberately misrepresented by Opposition Members. The United States is not easily comparable with Great Brtain in its financial, rating, property tax or educational systems. In particular, there is nothing like the broad principles of rate equalisation that we have in this country. Therefore, the disparity in the United States between the best and the worst schools is immensely greater than in Britain.
9.30 p.m.
Christopher Jenks, who has been quoted, has many times complained how he has been misrepresented. The only substantial point that he was trying to make was that the effect of schooling on life chances has been vastly overestimated. Some people might conider him to be comparatively Left wing. He was really saying "If you want to make people equal, you should pay them all the same and stop messing about with schools, thinking that will be some way of making people equal". Broadly speaking I think that he is right about the effect of

schooling on life chances having been vastly overestimated during the past 20 to 30 years, and that we are again beginning to come to a balance.
The Conservative Party, in its desperate search for something to fill the yawning chasm or vacuum in its educational policy, has to jump on the latest gimmick or band wagon and try to put it forward as a coherent policy for a sensible political party. In a way, I am sorry that such sensible people as the right hon. Member for Sidcup and the hon. Member for Carshalton should belong to the Conservative Party, because I like to see that party going off the rails. But, for the good of Britain, just in case the Opposition are ever returned to power, I am relieved that they have at least got one or two people with cornmon sense and educational sense.

Mr. Mayhew: It is a pity that this debate on what we can all agree is an interesting idea should have been spoiled by the introduction of blatantly party and partisan points by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). They do not add to the substance of the debate.
It is helpful to start by going back to the wording of the new clause. The key word is "experimental". We are not asking, as the Under-Secretary of State appeared to suggest, that the Secretary of State should set up a voucher scheme. We are merely asking that he should authorise the establishment of a voucher scheme to be devised and run by a local education authority on an experimental basis for an agreed period at the request of that authority.
It is a pity that we should have spent so much time listening to the point being made that we do not know whether a voucher scheme is Conservative Party policy or not. Of course we do not know whether it is Conservative Party policy to have a voucher scheme—[Laughter.]—because we have not yet had the experiment. Before hon. Gentlemen opposite burst into cackles of amusement because a political party does not commit itself to a major change in educational policy before first having had an experiment, they should listen to the end of the sentence. We are asking for no more than an experiment. That is not a remarkable thing, for which to ask.
What is sad about the opposition that we have heard to the new clause is that inherent in it is a degree of arrogance that has characterised so much of the educational policy of the Labour Government. Who are these local education authorities? Ought they to be assumed to be partisan idiots who are incapable of coming to a proper conclusion whether there ought to be an experimental scheme? If that is the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, they should explain to the electorate in Kent that their own education authority, which has gladly reorganised its secondary schools on a comprehensive basis in all save one district—happily my own—is not to be trusted if it comes to the conclusion at the end of the feasibility study that it has commissioned, which will take one year to carry out, that it is proper to go for an experimental scheme. If Government supporters believe that an education authority is not to be trusted to recommend an experimental scheme after it has carried out a feasibility study, let them say so. Let them say why.

Mr. John Ovenden: The hon. and learned Gentleman misleads the House when he says that Kent gladly agreed to a reorganisation of secondary education. If he looks round Kent he might find many areas, including Gravesend, where the Kent County Council dug its feet in and refused to move. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Kent education authority could be trusted to carry out the education voucher scheme as the electorate had authorised it to do so. In what manner was the electorate consulted? Was the electorate told about this scheme in the last county council elections? What were the reactions of the Kent teachers to the idea of the voucher scheme?
I am sure that the Opposition are glad that the Kent County Council is using public money for Conservative Party research. But that is different from having the confidence of the electorate.

Mr. Mayhew: It was a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman. The Kent education authority was not elected by the teachers. It was elected by the Kent electorate, which returned the Conservative Party with a greatly increased majority after considerable publicity had been given in the local newspapers to the

undertaking of the voucher feasibility study. Government supporters cannot abide the electorate giving its approval to experimental schemes of this kind, or to alternatives to a monolithic Socialist solution to any political problem.
It is a mistake to claim either too much for the voucher scheme—I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) was skilful and moderate in his speech—or to condemn it out of hand as capable of serving no useful purpose. I was sorry that the Under-Secretary was less clever. I do not believe that a voucher scheme can succeed in every circumstance. It cannot succeed if there is no spare capacity in the schools to be taken up by parents who wish to move their children from one school to another. Happily that is not always the case. We live at a time of falling birth rate. The inner cities are now losing their populations. There is therefore spare capacity.
Even today, in the absence of a voucher scheme, some parents are prepared to go against local education authority influence and to move their children to other schools. This is a good moment to say "If an education authority, having properly considered the matter by means of a feasibility study, wishes to set up a voucher scheme, it should be authorised to do so for a short time. The results must be monitored by the Secretary of State." I always thought that people were labelled conservatives if they said "No, we shall not experiment; we shall not depart from that which is proven". I always thought that that attitude of mind was condemned by Government supporters.
We do not ask the Secretary of State to say that there shall be a scheme. We ask him only to authorise a scheme devised and run by a local education authority. If Government supporters say that those authorities cannot be trusted they display a degree of arrogance that has long been characterised by the famous Socialist adage that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best.

Mr. Bryan Davies: If we are charitable, we must accept that the presence of this new clause on the Notice Paper and the occasion of this debate are part of the general proposition of the Opposition, prior to the introduction of the


motion last evening, that a good run round the educational houses serves the purpose of clogging up the Government's legislative programme. If we are less than charitable—and, after the result of last night's vote, we must interpret the situation as being that the Conservative Party is seeking to debate serious education issues—we must recognise that what is being put forward by the Opposition for serious consideration is the suggestion that education vouchers should be introduced as an experiment into the British education system.
I maintain that this clause represents a most fraudulent proposition, and its fraudulent nature was amply demonstrated by the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman). In fact, it is not a fair proposition to put before parents that the introduction of a voucher system will increase choice, unless we are first committed to a situation in which we intend to devote additional materials and resources to education. There is no choice in a situation in which parents and their children are merely shifted around between existing schools. There can be no hon. Member on either side of the House who supports the proposition that parents will not be able to identify which are the better schools and will seek to place their children in such schools.
This proposition depends upon an abundance of resources. It means that there will be a contribution of material resources to increase the opportunity of the good schools to provide for the increased number of choices of parents sending their children to them.

Dr. Hampson: Surely it is more than just a question of the resources involved. Is there not already a gap between teachers and what they think they are doing, and the expectancy of parents? If we give some means to parents whereby they may have some say, the schools themselves should be healthy.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that intervention. Certainly I am all for seeking to increase the ways in which we can help to make the teaching profession more accountable to parents and to local electorates. Indeed, I am sure that teachers would like to be more accountable to them. There are many ways in

which propositions of this kind can be put forward, and Government supporters have never thought that the teaching profession ought to arrogate to itself the right to determine the development of the education system. But I maintain that a voucher system will not do this, and that the Opposition are guilty of a fraud unless additional resources are to be made available sufficiently in advance, in the goods schools, for parents to avail themselves of such a choice. If that is not done, the choice is denied them.
I move on to a rather more substantial point about choice. The Conservative Party makes a great mistake in defining educational choice purely in terms of choice of school. We recognise why Opposition Members do this. Products and patronisers of the private system that they are, they are used to the cash nexus being operated by the more privileged and wealthy groups in our society to purchase an advantaged form of education. But the danger of producing that same concept within the framework of the education system that provides for the vast majority, where the opportunity to exercise privileged resources does not exist, is that choice does not exist as a "good" for people. Instead, it brings disappointment.
The great tragedy of a situation in which a few schools reap for themselves advantages, become advantaged and become more successful schools than others, is that for every parent who succeeds in getting his child into such a school another parent and another child are victims of loss of choice and, in fact, of loss of freedom, which the Conservative Party seeks to identify as being the support for this concept of its policy.

Mr. Tony Durant: The hon. Gentleman said that for one parent satisfied by getting his child into a particular school another parent is made unhappy and dissatisfied. Is he not saying that he wants rigid catchment areas, which are absolutely inflexible?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Davies: I am seeking to shift the emphasis of choice between schools towards the achievement of equality of provision and equality of regard between schools, so that the real possibilities of choice are made available within schools.


It is a mean concept of choice to identify solely in terms of a choice that results in one person gaining and another becoming inevitably disadvantaged. A more noble concept of choice is that every child in a school should have the opportunity fully to develop his talents. In that situation we should not concentrate on the competition that takes place when we continually put the emphasis on the difference between good and bad schools. We should seek to achieve a range of choices within schools, so that children can develop according to their several abilities and wishes.
The voucher system is just another issue in the many years of debate on the subject. The long debate still represents a major divide between the parties. A voucher system will not provide an extra dimension of choice when resources are limited. If hon. Members opposite are so keen and eager for the voucher system to be introduced into the State education system, why are greater efforts not made in the private sector to develop the themes behind that system?
Tonight we have heard that, far from being an advantage to the privileged, the voucher system could be used sympathetically for the development of those who are less advantaged by way of a discretionary rate of support for children from disadvantaged homes. Are the Opposition suggesting that they wish to advocate in the private sector—over which they have a degree of influence because of their strong links with it—that more disadvantaged children should attend private schools and that those private schools should provide a large proportion of places for such children? At present, the proportion of children who go to such schools through scholarships is small. But the philosophy behind the concept of fairness that the Opposition suggest might lie within the voucher system would require subsidies for a substantial proportion of pupils, because most of them come from disadvantaged homes.
Let us not have preaching from those who advocate the advantages of the private sector, when clearly a voucher system would merely lead to an increase in disadvantage and less satisfaction for both pupils and parents.

Mr. Speaker: I am deeply grateful for the short speeches so far. Perhaps they could be even shorter from now on. The winding-up speech is to start at 10 minutes past 10 o'clock.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies). I have listened to many of his speeches in education debates. He accuses us, and perhaps the private sector, of preaching. My understanding of his oratory in these debates is that he always has a particular line and preaches it very strongly, seldom appreciating that there is often another point of view.
The whole point of the voucher is the benefit it gives to all pupils, particularly the children who now, because of geographical misfortune or accident of birth, are confined to a less than desirable school in one of our deprived urban areas. In answer to the hon. Member for Enfield, North, I can say with some experience of the private sector that over many years it has offered many places to children from deprived backgrounds. Such schools offered this facility long before the State became as involved in education as it is now, long before the comprehensive issue reared its head.
Immediately real choice is given to parents with deprived backgrounds and on low income—some people would describe them as coming from working-class backgrounds—they have an effective weapon to encourage schools to provide what they and their children want. The William Tyndale situation in London is a clear indication that parents want a say in what is going on, and under the present system they do not have it.
The faint hearts might ask, "Will not the parents from poor areas be incapable of choosing?" That was implied in one or two speeches by Labour Members.

Mr. Mayhew: It was positively expressed.

Mr. Winterton: I do not believe that those who ask that question have a valid point. If the owner of an old banger is given the resources to buy a Rolls-Royce or equivalent car, people will be amazed how great are his powers of discerning the good and the bad. That is what the voucher experiment is all about.
The faint hearts may then say "Suppose all parents want to send their children to a school run by those who have received apostolic succession from the hon. Member for Brent, North. What about the empty schools run by the sociologists, perhaps those who took control of the Tyndale school in Islington, the long-haired Leftist disrupters who unfortunately we see within education today?" I describe those people as the dregs of the teaching profession.
As they receive no income as a result of receiving no vouchers, such school will close, and I shall say with emphasis "Jolly good riddance". Where will the pupils go? If we open up the education system to more private enteprise, the enterprising teachers and disciplinarians—I would put myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) in that category—may purchase the buildings and appoint headmasters and teachers trained in the true Boysonesque principle, and children will flock to those schools to take up the places.
We are asking that power be given to local authorities to run experiments if they wish. Why are the Government not prepared to allow that freedom? Are they afraid of success? I believe that they are. Do they fear that the results of the experiments will disprove the theory behind the comprehensive schools, which the Labour Party is forcing on the people as a total monopoly in the secondary sector?
In the long term the nation must have the courage to support a move towards the introduction of an educational voucher. That is very much part of what I can only describe as a trust-the-people philosophy. For each child, every parent would be given a voucher which would have to be spent on education. These vouchers could be supplemented by the parents, and then the voucher could be spent on a State school education or on an independent school education. It would give parents a real choice of education for their children. Schools which have been unresponsive to parental demand would decline and ultimately close. What is wrong with a new school being founded and a bad school going out of existence? This would be exciting for education and education is all about experiment.
I wonder what hon. Gentlemen opposite would have said about comprehensive education. That new system had to start somewhere. There was not, all of a sudden, comprehensive schools everywhere. They were started by an experiment. Some of them have not worked. Even hon. Members opposite realise that the large comprehensive school, which was the panacea for success a few years ago, is not now quite the success that they made it out to be.
Where a voucher is concerned we could discuss and modify the finer points in the proposal. But it is a clear constructive alternative to a State monopoly in the secondary sector of education. Whatever the difficulties it is vital for some means to be found of increasing real parental choice. I believe that the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North whose experience in education is widely respected not only in this country but abroad, has brought a light upon the debates that we have been having on education. I believe that the Government would be wrong to extend their octopus-like tentacles of Socialism, around virtually every activity in this country.
What is wrong in allowing a local authority to undertake an experiment? We are not asking the Secretary of State to say that this shall be implemented throughout the country. It is merely an experiment. If the Government are not prepared to allow the experiment to take place they must have something to hide. I hope that the House will warmly and strongly support the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North.

Mr. Noble: I propose to be brief in my intervention. We have heard some interesting comments from the Opposition. One of the things that became apparent in Committee was that there were two clear strands of educational thinking within the Conservative Party. Tonight we have heard some further strands.
I suppose that now the hon. Member for Rippon (Dr. Hampson) will be a little hurt because his platform as the radical progressive Tory educational thinker has been stolen from him by the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman). I must congratulate the hon.


Member for Carshalton on a very sensible speech. I would have thought that on the Government side of the House we could all agree with everything that the hon. Member had to say.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) will be delighted about this situation. At least he has seen the Left Wing of the Tory Party split, and there is a further threat from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison), who I see is waiting anxiously to reply to the debate. This indicates that within the Conservative Party there is no clear thinking whatever on educational matters and that the whole of the Education Bill, both in Committee and in this House, has been used by them to fly as many kites as possible to see which one will be snatched up by the public so that they can possibly formulate some kind of populist approach, particularly that kind of approach recommended by the hon. Member for Brent, North.
What is the basis of this so-called voucher system? What is it that the Opposition are trying to push? I recall reading that the hon. Member for Brent, North said that this type of approach was essential in a "consumer choice society." He will agree that he has used that type of phrase about the voucher system. It seeems to me that in those circumstances he is, in fact, reducing the education profession to something akin to the sale of soap flakes or Kelloggs cornflakes. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put education vouchers in a box of Kelloggs, to be opened by youngsters at the breakfast table in the mornings.
It was the hon. Gentleman's party in the nineteenth century which sought to bring this within the State system. Even then they recognised that the provision of education, as a private system, could not possibly work. In fact, the approach of the hon. Gentleman is based entirely on the elitist ideology of his party. It may lead to some parents applying pressure to secure the entry of their children into what are recognised or thought to be good schools, whatever that may mean.
10.0 p.m.
I do not know how one defines a good school. Is it a school that gets a certain number of Oxbridge passes or is it a school that, in a socially difficult situa-

tion, manages to create the atmosphere to overcome tension? Even the Opposition do not seem to know how to define a good school.
Parents have every right to define a good school in their own minds. People can decide for themselves what is good and bad, but they will then congregate around the so-called good schools. As the Minister said, this can only mean that the so-called poorer schools will gradually get worse. This will lead to an under-utilisation of essentially short capacity.
When we discuss the use of educational capacity we are not talking about variable costs; we are talking about massive fixed costs. The average secondary school must cost about £1 million-plus. Of course, good buildings do not necessarily make a good school, but when such a school is built and gets less than a good reputation, that kind of capacity will be under-used and other schools will be overcrowded.
I do not know whether the Department still defines capacity as that which a school is built for plus 10 per cent. but these circumstances are not comfortable for the children in the schools. Therefore in areas where we should be pumping, resources into schools, the chances are that they will gradually become more and more deprived.
My views on public expenditure cuts are, I hope, well known. The only answer to the problem of the poor school is material resources and a reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio, perhaps to the level that Conservative Members have enjoyed in public schools.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman also comment on the quality of teacher? Does he agree that if the situation that he described begins to develop, the governors of the school concerned may start getting off their backsides and looking at the situation to see why this is happening? Then, perhaps, if the headmaster or certain members of the senior staff were inadequate they might be removed and better staff appointed to restore the situation to the level that parents would wish and expect.

Mr. Noble: I am glad that the hon. Member has reminded me of that point. One of the things that have become apparent in our education debates, even


tonight, is the way in which the Conservative Party has become increasingly anti-teacher—

Mr. Arnold Shaw: And anti-local authority.

Mr. Noble: —and anti-local authority. Local authority involvement in education and every other influence are to be sacrificed on the altar of the parents. Parents do have an important role to play—

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the argument of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), if taken to its logical conclusion, means that the local authority and the State itself would no longer count? Parents took their children away from the William Tyndale School and set up their own school, and employed an ex-teacher. Thus, if the voucher idea were taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that we did not need the State schools at all.

Mr. Noble: I have followed the career of the hon. Member for Brent, North for many years. In Rossendale he is recognised as a Marxist seeking the withering away of the State. That has perhaps not yet come across to the Conservative Party.
In its thinking the Conservative Party has no place for the teacher. It has found a kite to fly about parents—

Mr. Ovenden: Does my hon. Friend recall the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunoridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) that he could not care less about the opinion of teachers in Kent on voucher schemes? My hon. Friend could use that as a further demonstration of the attitude of Conservative Members to the teaching profession.

Mr. Noble: We come back to the consumer choice society of the hon. Member for Brent, North, and those who provide the means—the teachers—do not count for one jot.
In view of the statements that have been made from the Opposition Benches today, we should have a clear policy statement from whoever is to make the winding-up speech for the Opposition on

whether the voucher system will be official Tory Party policy at the next election. We need to have that statement to set at rest the fears of parents. The teaching profession should also be told whether that is official Tory Party policy.
The hon. Member for Brent, North referred to the undemocratic nature of the Schools Council. He said it was undemocratic, because the unions on the Schools Council exercised the block vote. His father was a prominent trade unionist in my constituency, and the hon. Gentleman should know better. He did not tell us that the internal procedures of teachers' unions, as of other unions, are essentially democratic. There is full democratic discussion within the organisation before teachers go to the Schools Council, where they have a further democratic discussion. The hon. Gentleman—who has written an article in the Daily Telegraph today on the trade union movement—should have made that clear.
I am asking for a clear statement of policy. The trade unions—particularly those that are affiliated to the TUC—are aware of what consultation means to the Conservative Party. They recall that in 1970 they had four weeks in which to consult on the Industrial Relations Bill. I invite the Opposition to give the teachers' unions plenty of time to consider the educational voucher system. Will it be official party policy at the next election? If they do not make that clear, the Conservatives will be continuing into their period of Opposition the disservice to education that they perpetrated between 1970 and 1974.

Mr. Brotherton: I am delighted, in the two minutes left to me, to reply to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble). He epitomises all that is wrong in the Socialist approach to education. He believes that all should be vested in the teacher and the system, and that nothing should be left to the parent.
The clause seeks to introduce a voucher experiment in small areas of the country. I declare a personal interest. I have three young children, aged seven, five and three. It is my intention that they shall be educated in the private sector. It is right that I—and others like me—should be allowed to educate my children in the way I believe they should be educated,


in the same way as I should be allowed to provide for their health in the private sector, so that no one on the Government Benches dictates to me what happens to my children and my family.
I pay, as we all do, vast sums in taxes. Is it not right that I and people like me should be given vouchers so that we can decide where the money we have paid towards the education of our children shall be spent? Should it be spent in a primary school? Should it be spent in a public school? Should it be spent in a prep school? Where should it be spent?
I believe that it is up to me to decide where the money should be spent. It is because of the arrogant Marxist approach of Labour Members to education that we should approve this experiment and make our country more free.

Mr. Peter Morrison: It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and other of my hon. Friends have successfully stirred the pot. We have talked about standards and about William Tyndale. We have talked about those matters because we are concerned about them. It is not only my hon. Friends and I who have that concern. It is felt by parents throughout the land. They are all concerned but Labour Members seem quite happy. I suspect that the outside world will note that they are so happy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North talked about what the voucher system would achieve. He said that it would get rid of the worst schools, strengthen the individual and the family against the State, and bring a greater variety of schools. He said that pupils do well at schools when their parents are backing the schools. However, the Under-Secretary of State did not take up any of my hon. Friend's contentions. She did not even try to prove that he was talking nonsense. She went in a totally different direction when she argued her case.
When we consider the American experiment it is interesting to note that it began at the request and behest of minority groups such as the blacks and the Spaniards. It is they who required and pushed forward for the voucher experiment. That was not done, as some

Labour Members would suggest, by the elitists.
The hon. Lady painted a picture of schools being empty. She said that one day they would be empty and that they would be full the next, and that that would be as a direct result of the voucher system. Has she considered what has happened in the private sector? This has not been the case there. Has it occurred to the hon. Lady that if a school looked as if it were not getting the right number of applicants the headmaster and the governors would immediately do their homework and introduce a new curriculum and a new prospectus? That would quickly set the balance right.
The hon. Lady derided my hon. Friend for saying that parents would get their choice. She said that the choice that children now have is substantially greater than the choice that they would get under the voucher system. But in the Alum Rock experiment 97 per cent. of the parents got their choice. Therefore, in that respect too the hon. Lady was not arguing the case as cogently as she might have done.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has departed. He quoted at length, and with interest on my part, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He said that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) are the only two Opposition Members who have any common sense about the voucher system. If we examine what my right hon. Friend said, he suggested that we should have a healthy degree of scepticism about this system. I agree with him. Of course it must be treated with a healthy degree of scepticism. It is only right that any new idea should be so treated. But that is not to say that in the end, after the experiment, it might prove to be exactly what is required by the parents of schoolchildren.
10.15 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton was at pains to point out that there were definite disadvantages in the voucher scheme. He said that the less good schools would get worse. He may be right, but he said that he hoped that experiments would be carried out because


without experiments one could not tell what would happen.
From what has been said on the Labour Benches one would think that the Conservative Opposition were suggesting that the whole system of education should be utterly overthrown. That is not of course the case. We are not suggesting that in this clause. The clause refers to an experiment. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) is particularly interested because I gather that his constituency may conduct an experiment, but it is only an experiment and will not be foisted upon everybody. That experiment will happen only in a local education authority when a given area requires it to happen.

Mr. Ovenden: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about an experiment throughout a local education authority or an experiment within an educational division? If so, does he believe that the local education authority should seek the view of the educational advisory committee within a district before it goes ahead with an experiment?

Mr. Morrison: It is up to the authority to decide how the experiment is conducted. Perhaps it will decide to conduct the experiment in a defined area, or in a whole area. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gravesend has read the Committee proceedings on the Bill. In Committee we constantly pointed out that local education authorities are much better at making up their minds on behalf of the children in an area than ever Whitehall was or will be.
The clause refers to the monitoring of results. Having heard the speeches delivered by many Labour Members in these discussions, one could be forgiven for thinking that they were happy at the rate of numeracy and literacy. At the same time one would think that they were totally unconcerned that there were children who leave school without being able to read or write.
We believe that there is a need for a radical approach because, whatever Labour Members say, standards are dropping and in many cases parents are not satisfied with the situation. We also believe that there is no freedom of choice—or at least not sufficient choice. If this Bill goes on the statute book, we believe

that there will be no freedom of choice left at all.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to two points? First, he spoke about an experiment. This is an experiment on live animals—namely, children. Why does he believe that children in a particular local education authority, namely one in Kent, should be selected to be guinea pigs in such an experiment? Secondly, will he say how he squares his argument about the right of a local education authority to impose experiments on people with the Opposition's views about parental choice?

Mr. Morrison: I am interested that the Minister of State should have decided to intervene in this discussion, particularly as he has not been in the House for the whole of the debate. The local education authority will have been elected by parents and others in the area, presumably on a programme that includes the promotion of a voucher experiment. I see nothing wrong in allowing such an experiment to take place. I shall go on to deal with this matter, and I am glad that the Minister is here to hear what I say.
I accept that there are problems. There are the problems of bussing, and I do not think these have been mentioned much today. If parents decide to send their children to a school on the opposite side of town, they must make that decision for themselves.
There is also the problem of false expectations. At least one knows, however, that if the parent does not get his child into the school of his first choice, he will get that child into the second or even the third choice. At the moment, it is possible that parents do not get any choice at all.
Then there is the problem of the closure of schools. There is no particular reason to think that new schools will be built instead. What will happen is that there will be a change in headmaster and a change of syllabus, and parents will start sending their children to the same bricks and mortar with a different make-up inside.
Having said that these are the problems, I would point out that there are


definitely some advantages. There would be a widening of the scope of choice for a start. I listened in Committee to the Socialists saying that we Conservatives are totally and utterly against comprehensive schools. We are not. In fact, if we have vouchers, there are many parents who would want to send their children to comprehensives, and there is no reason why they should not do so. Equally, there are some parents who might want to send their children to schools specialising in mathematics, science, or music.
Another advantage would be that teachers would be much more conscious of success or failure. Hon. Members opposite claim that teachers are very sceptical about vouchers. Teachers were just as sceptical about the Alum Rock experiment in America, but two years after it began, the majority were in favour of the scheme because they felt more in touch with the parents of the children they were teaching.
Yet another advantage would be that the head teachers would be required to issue comprehensive prospectuses. Nothing concentrates the mind more than the head teacher having to decide what sort of prospectus he is offering to children in his school.
I am sorry that we have not had a spokesman from the Liberal Party in these debates today and throughout the Committee stage. We had an intervention earlier from the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) who asked what would have happened if a voucher scheme had existed at the William Tyndale School. The answer is that the school would have closed down two years earlier, and that would have been much better than what did happen.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said in his closing remarks that education cannot be chopped and changed at will. That is exactly what the Government are doing in this Bill. They are chopping and changing education. What we are suggesting in our new clause is that there should be merely an experiment.
The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) wanted to know our policy. I can tell him that our policy is to wait and see. If a local education authority wishes to come forward with an experiment, then it will have my blessing. We shall moni-

tor the results, and if the scheme is as successful as we hope, it will be something which will catch alight like a forest fire across the country. It has been rather depressing to listen to speeches from the other side of the House. There is general alarm in the country among parents about the falling standards in education. Hon. Members opposite are not even prepared to open their minds and look at this new and exciting idea.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The most depressing aspect of the debate for me has been the failure of the Conservatives to meet or even seriously to consider the detailed points of difficulty that we have raised about how their scheme might be operated. They have been silent about how it will be decided which parents get the first choice. They have not said whether there is to be a lottery, whether it will be those whose envelopes are opened first on the day of decision, or what system is to be used to choose the successful parents as opposed to the majority who will be unsuccessful in getting a choice of school.
The hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) chided me for not meeting the arguments put by his hon. Friend about why the scheme would be so helpful to parents and children, and I must acknowledge the justice of the hon. Gentleman's criticism. But it is very difficult to deal with arguments which are not arguments at all, simply vague woolly-minded statements of good intent. If we had had arguments in favour of the scheme explaining why it would be such a good thing, it would have been easier to deal with them. Instead, all we have been offered has been a vague assertion and not an argument. That has been a depressing feature of the conduct of the debate by the Conservatives.
They appear to nurture the illusion that as long as they say "freedom of choice" three times in a sentence and "experiment" twice in a paragraph that is sufficient justification for any scheme they choose to put before us and is sufficient to convince the parents whose children will be subjected to the experiment that it has been adequately considered and that it will benefit them.
The Opposition have a duty, when in the fullness of time they decide whether


this is their policy, to examine very carefully the problems which such a scheme, experimental or otherwise, will raise. There would be problems with buildings, with staff and, most of all, with the children. Although the hon. Member for City of Chester suggested that there was no reason why bad schools should simply decline and disappear, in his concluding remarks he suggested that under a voucher scheme the William Tyndale School would have declined and disappeared.
I would put to the hon. Member the point I put earlier to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). It is part of the logic of this scheme—it is the only way in which the proposal will work—that good schools thrive and bad schools decline and are closed. With them will decline the education of the children who are unfortunate enough to be in them at the time.
There is still a tremendous gulf between the two sides of the House. We are concerned with the education of all children. This debate has shown clearly that the Opposition are concerned to see how children are allocated between good schools and bad schools, are concerned to see how one set of parents can be given an advantage, whether by lottery or any other system, over another set of parents. We on this side are concerned to see that every bad school, every school of below average standards, has its standards raised. We do not want a system in which the good schools thrive and

every other school declines, in which the children in the schools which have less than satisfactory standards, less than satisfactory teachers, have an education which continues to suffer down the years. We believe that there should be a system where every school is good and where every child has an adequate choice within the school that it attends. We do not want a system which is concerned simply with allocating children among schools of differing standards.

The Conservatives claim that since they are merely asking for an experiment, however badly worked out and inadequately defended it may be, we should accept the new clause because the responsibility lies with the local authority. But the new clause as worded does not merely leave responsibility with the local authority to prepare the scheme. It advocates and states that the Secretary of State must abrogate completely his responsibility for exercising some judgment and control over what local authorities do within their very wide discretion. By the wording of the clause the Conservatives are completely abolishing the Secretary of State's rights in that respect—

It being half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 303.

Division No. 266.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Antony
Drayson, Burnaby


Alison, Michael
Budgen, Nick
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bulmer, Esmond
Dunlop, John


Arnold, Tom
Burden, F. A.
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh


Awdry, Daniel
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Kenneth
Carson, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Banks, Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Elliott, Sir William


Bell, Ronald
Channon, Paul
Emery, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Benyon, W.
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Farr, John


Biffen, John
Clegg, Walter
Fell, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockcroft, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Body, Richard
Cope, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cordle, John H.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Bottomley, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Fox, Marcus


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Costain, A. P.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Critchley, Julian
Fry, Peter


Bradford, Rev Robert
Crouch, David
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Brittan, Leon
Crowder, F. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brotherton, Michael
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutstord)
Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)




Glyn, Dr Alan
Lloyd, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Goodhart, Philip
Luce, Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Goodhew, Victor
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Goodlad, Alastair
McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Nell
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
MacGregor, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sainsbury, Tim


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Gray, Hamish
Madel, David
Scott, Nicholas


Griffiths, Eldon
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Grist, Ian
Marten, Neil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hall, Sir John
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Colin


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Silvester, Fred


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawby, Ray
Sims, Roger


Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sinclair, Sir George


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mayhew, Patrick
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hastings, Stephen
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Speed, Keith


Havers, Sir Michael
Mills, Peter
Spence, John


Hawkins, Paul
Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester]


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moate, Roger
Sproat, Iain


Heseltine, Michael
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Hicks, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Higgins, Terence L.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stanley, John


Holland, Philip
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stokes, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stradling, Thomas J.


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hurd, Douglas
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Neubert, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


James, David
Newton, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Normanton, Tom
Townsend, Cyril D.


Jessel, Toby
Nott, John
Trotter, Neville


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Onslow, Cranley
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally
van Straubenzee, W, R.


Jopling, Michael
Osborn, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Viggers, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wakeham, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Paisley, Rev Ian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kershaw, Anthony
Parkinson, Cecil
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester


Kilfedder, James
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Kimball, Marcus
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wall, Patrick


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walters, Dennis


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Warren, Kenneth


Kirk, Sir Peter
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Wells, John


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rathbone, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Knox, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lane, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Younger, Hon George


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)



Lawson, Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Le Merchant, Spencer
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Jim Lester and


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Michael Roberts.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Archer, Peter
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Corbett, Robin


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchanan, Richard
Crawford, Douglas


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cronin, John


Bates, Alf
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Bean, R. E.
Campbell, Ian
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Beith, A. J.
Canavan, Dennis
Cryer, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carmichael, Neil
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter, Ray
Davidson, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Cartwright, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Boardman, H.
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)




1939-40


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kaufman, Gerald
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kelley, Richard
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Kodgers, George (Chorley)


Doig, Peter
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dormand, J. D.
Kinnock, Nell
Rooker, J. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lambie, David
Roper, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamborn, Harry
Rose, Paul B.


Dunn, James A.
Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dunnett, Jack
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Lee, John
Sandelson, Neville


Edge, Geoff
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Selby, Harry


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ennals, David
Litterick, Tom
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Evans, John (Newton)
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silverman, Julius


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Skinner, Dennis


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smiih, John (N Lanarkshire)


Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (ince)
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stott, Roger


Forrester, John
Madden, Max
Strang, Gavin


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Magee, Bryan
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon
Summerskiil, Hon Dr Shirley


Freud, Clement
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marks, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marquand, David
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Golding, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James


Graham, Ted
Mendelson, John
Tomlinson, John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Klibride)
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Urwin, T. W.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mitchell, R. c. (Soton, Itchen)
Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.


Hardy, Peter
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Ward, Michael


Hatton, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkins, David


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Newens, Stanley
Watkinson, John


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Noble, Mike
Weetch, Ken


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon
Weitzman, David


Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Hooson, Emlyn
O'Halloran, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice
White, James (Pollok)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Whitehead, Phillip


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John
Whitlock, William


Huckfield, Les
Owen, Dr David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pendry, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest
Woodall, Alec


Janner, Greville
Phipps, Dr Colin
Woof, Robert


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


John, Brynmor
Price, C. (Lewisham W)



Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, William (Rugby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Radice, Giles
Mr. David Stoddart and


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Peter Snape.

Question accordingly negivated.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although the time is limited for this debate, no one can doubt that the Bill has been very thoroughly discussed. We have in fact had two full days for Second Reading, 86 hours in Committee and more than 30 hours on the consideration.
I begin by more than a formal word of appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), who together have borne the burden of putting the Government's case through a great deal of these proceedings—a burden which they have discharged, I am satisfied, with wit, charm, learning and dedication.
I should like to put the record straight, since the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made an uncharacteristically unfair comment about my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough, about the circumstances which, to my regret, caused her to leave the Government. In fact no one will be more delighted than she when, as I confidently predict, this motion is overwhelmingly carried at midnight.
We had a long Committee stage. I am particularly indebted to my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and ensured that the Bill came through in such a satisfactory way. If it is in no way embarrassing to the Opposition, I should like to pay a tribute particularly to the star performer in this affair, the hon. Member for Chelmsford, and to his able supporting cast, especially the hon. Members for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) and Ripon (Dr. Hampson).
It would take a long time to go through all those who took part in the Committee stage. I think that they went beyond the demands of duty, because they have all probably suffered permanent injury as a result of their opposition to this Bill. Most of them will never in their lives be able to make a short speech again. We have seen some signs of this complaint during the Report stage. But although some of their speeches were long, I understand that generally they were illuminating and entertaining.
All the proceedings on the Bill have been conducted on a very proper well-tempered parliamentary basis and it is only right to pay a special tribute to the hon. Member for Chelmsford who, I understand, never lost his wit, although perhaps some people may say that from time to time his wits were not so evident, and who enlivened our proceedings though he may not have always enlightened us.
The clauses which set out the Government's policy on secondary reorganisation are Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5. We set out in Clause 1 the general principle that secondary education should be organised on a fully comprehensive basis and, in my belief, that is completely within the framework of Section 1 of the 1944 Act. Indeed, we followed the same lines on implementing the requirements for plans and the rest as were followed in the 1944 Act—the noble Lord, Lord Butler's Act—to get rid of all-age schools and to introduce proper secondary education.
I accept that, to some extent, this impinges on the balance between central and local government. But what we are doing in this Bill is a very minor matter compared with the change in the balance which would have resulted if we had accepted the new clauses tabled by the Opposition on a wide variety of matters which would have meant that in many respects local authorities would have had no responsibilities at all.
I should make it clear that Clauses 2 and 3 still leave with local authorities and voluntary school governors, properly in my view, the right to decide the pattern of reorganisation in their schools and to take into account local circumstances.
Clause 5, in effect, restores to the Secretary of State his powers of veto over local education authorities' take-up of places at or similar arrangements relating to non-maintained schools. This closes a possible loophole in the provisions to secure a fully comprehensive system of secondary education and puts the position back where it was in 1944. I may say that I attach great importance to this provision.

Mr. Robert Adley: It is putting the clock back.

Mr. Mulley: It is putting it back to where, I understand, the Conservative Party likes it to be—within the framework of the 1944 Act.
The remainder of the Bill deals largely with technical matters tidying up amendments to earlier legislation on a number of issues. The only exception is Clause 8, and I regard even this as merely an enabling provision which, as I explained on Second Reading, removes an absurd restriction in the Education (Milk) Act 1971.
This is an important Bill. It creates in a proper and full sense the possibility of secondary education and equal educational opportunity for all. I believe that it will be welcomed by the great majority of our people, as it will be endorsed by a majority of the House tonight.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I must thank the Secretary of State for his kind words at the beginning of his speech. A compliment is always acceptable, and I am happy to reciprocate with regard to the Ministers who served on the Standing Committee.
Let me add one word of explanation. I never intended to suggest that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) resigned because of her opposition to the Bill. She resigned her office because of her general opposition to the education policies of the Government. Everyone knows that that is her position, and I had no intention of suggesting otherwise.
I also pay tribute to Opposition Front and Back Benchers, who have worked extremely hard without any back-up such as that which the Civil Service provides, but with support from voluntary helpers.
On this occasion of the Third Reading, my first duty must be to restate once again the Conservative position on comprehensive schools. We are not against comprehensive schools. We have never been against them. We are for the improvement of comprehensive schools and for seeing that they can preserve in the new setting the academic traditions which are such a valuable part of our education system.
We are for variety in schools, because we believe that it is good for children, good for parents and good for education

in general, and because the only hope of innovation within an education system is to have different types of school. Comprehensive schools could never have made headway had there not been flexibility.
We are strongly against the mindless imposition of comprehensive schools regardless of parental wishes, local conditions and financial resources—and that is what the Bill is about. It is not about comprehensive schools at all. It is about compulsion and the imposition of comprehensive schools without resources. The only certain consequence of the Bill will be that it will bring the idea of the comprehensive school into discredit because it will force local authorities, against their judgment and without the money, to create a totally comprehensive system.
We believe that the Bill is wrong in principle because it destroys that balance under the 1944 Act which created the partnership—which has lasted 30 years—between central Government, local education authorities and voluntary schools. It takes a giant to build and a pigmy to destroy, and it is the work of a giant of education, Lord Butler, that is being put at risk by a Minister of much less stature than he.
We are against the Bill in principle because it introduces a new concept into our education law—that the local education authorities are the agents of central Government and that their only purpose is to carry out its will. That is entirely opposed to the idea which has lain at the base of every education Act since 1870—that there shall be a partnership between local education authorities, the Secretary of State and the voluntary schools.
The Bill will be disastrous in practice—first, because there is no money to carry out the schemes. There has been an accounting of £25 million but that will not be sufficient to finance the provisions in the Bill. We shall have more botched-up schemes than ever, more split-site schools—which means more truancy—and we shall embark on the policy of a Secretary of State who has slashed the education budget more than any of his predecessors.
The second reason that the Bill will be disastrous is that it is badly drafted. It will lead to endless legal disputes


and confrontations in the courts. There is a strong body of legal opinion which says that the Bill will not be enforceable in the courts because it lays down a general principle which is in conflict with the principle that children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. The Bill does not lay down a third principle to mediate between those principles when they come into conflict, as they do in Southend where 76 per cent. of the parents have come out in favour of a selective system, according to a poll conducted by the local education authority.
Our third charge against the Bill is that it is dangerously destructive at a time when anxiety about educational standards has never been greater. We have already referred to the Bennett Report, with its strictures on the mode of so-called progressive teaching. We have discussed the situation in the William Tyndale School, a scandal which has shocked the entire country. But that is merely the tip of an iceberg.
We are in danger of a collapse of standards, not in all our schools but in many of the schools in our great cities, particularly those in deprived areas which are suffering from unprecedented social and other strains. We are seeing threats to discipline and an erosion of religious and moral values in the schools. This is the moment when the Secretary of State chooses to indulge his obsession with organisation, disregarding issues which are of so much greater concern to parents.
We have opposed the Bill by every parliamentary means in our power. It is right that we should, because it is not wanted in the country, and it is not even wanted by the Government's own supporters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. There are thousands of Labour supporters who do not like the Government's education policy. The tight for the retention of the grammar schools was strongest in traditional working-class areas, because the people there were being deprived of an educational opportunity. The bright child in a disadvantaged area always had the chance of a reasonable start in life as long as there was a grammar school there. Now he will be confined to a local neighbourhood comprehensive.
We have tried to oppose the Bill constructively. We have had debates on the educational issues which the Secretary of State and his Department should have put at the top of their list, debates on examinations, standards, further education and the voucher. We should have had many more debates if the guillotine had not descended.
A beneficial side effect of this bad Bill is that this year we have had more discussion of education and the basic issues, thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friends, than we have had for a long time. We have won time. Time has always been the principal weapon of an Opposition, and time is certainly of the essence here.
Even if the Bill is given a Third Reading tonight, let us remember that we are still a bi-cameral legislature and that the argument is not finished in this House. That is the constitution. It is an accepted constitutional convention that when the will of the people is not clear, when they have not made up their minds permanently on an issue, the role of the House of Lords is to give them a second opportunity. I do not say, I cannot say, it is not for me to say, what the House of Lords will do, but if the Secretary of State thinks that he can go away now, take a holiday and forget about the Bill, he is wrong. The battle is by no means over. It will not be over until another General Election has given the people the opportunity to decide on the Bill and the other measures which have been foisted on them by a Government which a tenuous majority in the House and a minority of support in the country.
If—despite all we can do, have done and shall do, because we have the support of the people on this issue—this unwanted and destructive measure reaches the statute book, it will not be there for very long. As soon as we have the opportunity we shall repeal it, and, having repealed it, we shall seek to re-establish once again, on an agreed basis—I do not say that it will be easy, but we must always be ready to do so—a policy for our schools which is based not upon politics, or social engineering, or doctrinaire attitudes but upon educational values. That is what the vast majority of the parents of this country want.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Unlike the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) I take great delight in witnessing the Third Reading of this measure. For many years I have looked to the House of Commons and to Parliament to pass a measure such as this which would produce a complete comprehensive system of secondary re-organisation.
We have spent a great deal of time on this measure. In spite of the 35 sittings of the Committee, I have rather enjoyed the experience. I certainly enjoyed the experience of listening to some of the inanities of the Opposition who have used the time not for any constructive purpose at all but simply in order to hold back the Bill. It is unfortunate that Parliament has had to say "enough is enough" and that we have got to the position where we are saying that this is the day when we shall decide on the principle of the Bill. What gives me tremendous pleasure is the fact that, as a result of the Bill and the introduction of the universal system of comprehensive secondary schools, the children of this country will have equal opportunities to match their aptitudes and abilities. That was the basic idea behind the 1944 Education Act. For that reason alone I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.
Much has been said during the course of debate about the question of parental choice. It is difficult to imagine greater humbug expressed than that which has been expressed both in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
My own constituency is part of the London borough of Redbridge which has been dominated by the Tory Party since its inception. There we have a system, which Conservative members seem to think satisfactory, where comprehensive schools and grammar schools exist side by side. That is an impossible combination if one is to have a system of comprehensive education.
What has been the result? At the present time, parents, who are supposed to be given a freedom of choice by the Tory local authority, are besieging the offices of the local authority in order to get that choice which is being denied them by the very system which has been introduced by that council.

Mr. Adley: Presumably the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that there should be no alternative choice and he would prefer to see the total abolition of all schools other than State comprehensives.

Mr. Shaw: Of course I would. I have said it before in the House and I will say it again. I am an unrepentant believer in neighbourhood comprehensive schools which I believe will give freedom of choice and sufficient spread of opportunity to cater for all children in that area.
To come back to my borough of Red-bridge. We have a system of selection which is obviously necessary if one is to keep maintained grammar schools. As a result of the selection test, the children are divided into academics and nonacademics—in other words, into those who can benefit from an academic education and those who cannot or are said to be unable to benefit. Those passing the test, if I may I would put "test" in parentheses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I am talking as quickly as did the hon. Member for Chelmsford whose words we have heard separated by at least three seconds.

Mr. Adley: What he said was worth listening to.

Mr. Shaw: We have, as a result, academics and non-academics, with the academics divided into three categories, A, B and C. [Interruption.] I have all the time in the world.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Only one hon. Member can be speaking at a time.

Mr. Shaw: I would remind the House that when I was a teacher, or was learning to be a teacher, I was told that when one has very slow learners, one should speak very slowly to them and, if necessary, repeat oneself, so that they understand.
To go back to my borough of Red-bridge, the children are divided into sheep and goats, or into academics and non-academics. The academics are divided into three, A, B and C—

Hon. Members: A, B and C.

Mr. Bryan Davies: They have got it now.

Mr. Shaw: In the allocation of places, obviously those at the top of the scale, in category A, will get into the grammar schools, or their choice of comprehensive school. Those in category B will, in the main, also get the chance of getting into the remainder of the comprehensive school places, the grammar schools having been filled. Those in category C, who are supposed to have passed the test, have to wait until those in categories A and B have been satisfied. [Laughter.] I appreciate that this is rather funny, but it is not funny for the parents of children in my constituency. Those in category C have to wait their turn.
In the meantime, the non-academics have already been placed, in that they go to the neighbourhood schools, secondary modern, of which we still have some, or the comprehensive schools in the catchment areas where they live. Now comes the turn of category C.

Mr. Durant: Mr. Durant rose—

Mr. Shaw: No. You wait.
The "Cs" now ask at the education office for their choice of school but are told that those schools are already closed. They are given other possibilities.
I know of one case in which a child has passed the 11-plus in this third category. He is happy, he is buoyed up because he has passed and waits his turn for the schools of his choice. Eventually he finds that he cannot go to that school and is given other alternatives which would necessitate his travelling many miles from his home. Those are refused on other grounds and eventually he ends going to his neighbourhood secondary modern school, a very good one. Even there, he is not sure until the last moment that he will get in.
A child in that situation is completely deflated. From looking forward to a secondary school career in which he might have expressed himself according to his ability, at the age of 11, he sees his future completely dashed.
With vouchers or any other such system, choice just does not exist. The only possibility of satisfying children's aptitudes is within the comprehensive system. Comprehensive secondary reorganisation has been advocated by the Labour Party over the years. Tonight,

whether the Opposition like it or not, it has come to fruition. Despite the threats of the hon. Member for Chelmsford we shall support it. House of Lords or no House of Lords, this will eventually be the system which obtains in this country.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. John Page: What a desperately depressing evening this has been. I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and my other hon. Friends who sat on the Committee for their good will and maturity in keeping a sense of proportion and a sense of humour despite the turgid propaganda to which they have had to listen for many months.
From the Government Front Bench, even the Under-Secretary could only be totally destructive. She was not even prepared, like my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), to take a slightly different view from that of members of her own party. Every Labour Member today has been merely destructive. They have taken a totally uniform approach—that only one form of education will be presented to the people of this country by the statesmen in the Department of Education and Science, and that is their lot.
The children who will suffer most from the Bill—which I fear may get through tonight—are not those of Harrow. The imposition of the uniform comprehensive school in Harrow will not be so damaging because of the quality of parental interest which is shown in my constituency. Those who will suffer are the children in the less privileged, inner city areas, where there will be no escape for the bright child who wants the opportunity to improve himself and pull himself out of the mire of mediocrity.

Mr. Max Madden: Money.

Mr. Page: Maybe it is called money, but what is so sad is that Labour Members are denying the opportunity to their constituents for their children to be able to join scholastically with the children of more academically-minded parents.
The other damaging aspect of the Bill is Clause 5. The Bill will impose the neighbourhood comprehensive school on the country as a whole and, in addition, the Secretary of State will take to himself power to deny local authorities the


opportunity of arranging places at independent schools—particularly at the old grammar schools which have become newly independent. It is extremely dangerous for the Government to take these powers. I see them in a rather vicious way getting their own back on the grammar schools which refused to go into the State sector. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to see the disappearance of all schools except the neighbourhood comprehensive. Those are the pressures which will be applied to the Secretary of State.
I see no way out for this country apart from a General Election. If before an election the people of the country heard the speeches made by Labour Members tonight, they would throw the Government out, because they know that the opportunities they want for their children will not be provided by the Bill. I hope that we shall soon have a General Election, so that this ridiculous and damaging Bill can be destroyed.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I rise with a degree of diffidence on the Third Reading of the Bill because I carry no campaign medals for having served on the Committee. That is not from want of trying on my part, but such is the profusion of talent on the Government side on educational matters, and such is the limited quality of the Opposition, that it is not always possible for those desirous of getting on Committees to do so.
I greatly regret having been unable to participate in the deliberations of the Committee and in the proceedings on Report. Having heard the limited argument presented by the Opposition in the past three or four hours, I do not believe that I have been greatly deprived.
The Opposition Front Bench spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), has argued in defence of a selective system of education that is not supported by any but a minority of voters or by any but a minority of Conservative local authorities. He argued for a position that was scarcely defensible 10 years ago when Circular 10/65 was issued and that now looks like a relic of a last-ditch battle of a decade ago. If Opposition Members are to produce arguments that

relate only to issues that should have been settled a decade back, we can look not only to continuous Labour Administrations but a continuous low level of opposition from the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I respect the hon. Gentleman's judgment between the wickets as I do on every issue that he discusses, but will he apply his argument—I do not question his judgment—to the issue that a minority of the electorate does not have the right to sway an argument one way or the other? We have discussed under guillotine motions the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries and the Dock Work Regulation Bill. Those matters would not have achieved one-in-ten support from the electorate but they have been steamrollered through the House. How can the hon. Gentleman suddenly grasp such an argument out of the air on this Bill? I do not accept his mathematics, but to use that argument does not seem to equate with his judgment in running between the wickets.

Mr. Davies: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I understand that I shall remain in order only if I direct my remarks to the consideration of education.
The hon. Gentleman will realise that when we supported the motion to limit the debate this evening we did so in the knowledge of what was likely to happen tonight, and what we anticipated would happen has happened. At one stage the Opposition were arguing for massive extra resources to be devoted to education to implement a voucher programme, but at a later stage their Front Bench spokesmen were arguing that comprehensive education cannot be introduced because there are insufficient available resources. Are their insufficient resources for those authorities that under Conservative control have resisted the introduction of comprehensive education? They are often among the wealthiest authorities in the country.
The second arugment put forward by the Opposition is that comprehensive education has been introduced against the wishes of parents. Has there been no realisation on the Opposition Benches of the extent to which the wishes of parents


are inevitably frustrated under a selective system? In circumstances where they ensure for their own children the best of education, often being prepared to make sacrifices in terms of purchasing that education privately, how do they think other parents feel when their children, at the age of 11, are arbitrarily identified as being incapable of certain courses of education and development? That is not freedom or a range of choice.
We should recognise that an extension of choice is possible only in terms of the possibilities within the framework of any one school. That is where the Opposition should be concentrating their case. They should be ensuring that resources, standards and courses are developed within the comprehensive system.
It is right to comment on the most disgraceful argument of all that is deployed by the Opposition. They support a case which manifestly is not supported in the country, but we have had an old blunderbuss dragged out against us, one that appears whenever a Labour Administration proposes to introduce an element of advanced legislation—namely that the Conservative majority in the House of Lords will cause us to halt and stay. Despite the disavowal of the hon. Member for Chelmsford that he does not know the way in which the Lords will respond to this Bill, we should take his proposition more seriously. History will indicate to us that the other place often takes its marching orders from the line adopted by the Conservative Front Bench in arguments in this Chamber.
This Bill should have the full-hearted support of all hon. Members on this side of the House, and, indeed, all hon. Members on the Liberal Benches. We shall proceed successfully to Third Reading, and if the Conservatives succeed in manipulating the House of Lords, they will rue the day.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Freud: Since the start of this debate we have heard from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that time is the principal weapon of the Opposition, and that would still be the position had the guillotine not descended. We had today just over six hours before the 10.30 p.m. vote. In this six hours and 12 minutes, to be precise, we had three hours and 11 minutes on a

motion which sought to discontinue the Schools Council. After those three hours and 11 minutes we did not even have a vote. This was a scandalous waste of a very limited amount of time. After that we had two and a half hours of debate on the voucher system. We have had arguments in this House on the voucher system over and over again, and the point which was made from the Labour Benches about the expense of the system is very valid.
Education is, to a very great extent, about planning and looking ahead. The voucher system depends on the trendy school—the popular school of the day having been enlarged to cope with those children whose parents want them to go there and the pulling down of buildings when the size of the school becomes unsuitable.
The voucher scheme is always an interesting experiment. I went to California and saw what happened in practice. It was an absolute disaster, and it did not work. Far more money was spent on petrol and paying drivers than on teachers and books, which, after all, is what education is about.
This is not a particularly good Bill. It is not basically about education. It is about compulsion, and we Liberals deplore compulsion. I want to look at the better of two not particularly appetising choices. I, and my colleagues, with one or two notable exceptions who believe that they should vote with the Opposition because they feel quite rightly that local authorities should have greater rights and not lesser rights, will support the Bill because we feel that it is impossible to have comprehensive education running alongside selective education.
In my constituency, which has the worst of all evils, we have selection at the age of 13-plus. We have a creaming off at the age of 13 which causes misery to those who are left behind and brings no great happiness to those who are selected. In my surgeries last week I had over more than 20 parents. It is a good thing that parents complain that their children are not creamed off, because it means that at least the school which retains these children has an element of kids who have academic ambitions.
I shall conclude shortly because I know that many hon. Members who served on


the Committee for all those hours, and who occasionally went out to make long telephone calls, also want to speak. Many of us have split loyalties. We have a passionate feeling about which sort of education is right. We also have schools in our constituencies which we feel, regardless of our politics, to be good schools which should be encouraged. My point simply is that a majority of my hon. Friends and I will support the Government because we believe in comprehensive education. We also believe that the seven recalcitrant local authorities should make some gesture towards implementing it.

11.37 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I was unsuccessful in trying to speak in the debate yesterday and I missed the opening remarks by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. I must take up one point yesterday by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) who said that I had resigned from the Government because of the Bill.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Lady knows that I have great admiration for her courage in resigning from the Government over the education cuts. I would be the last person to suggest that she resigned over the Bill, which I know she wholeheartedly supports. I explained to the Secretary of State while she was absent earlier that that was what I had intended to say. If in any way I did not make that clear, I am happy to do so now.

Miss Lestor: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said. I know that he would not wish to misrepresent me any more than I would him.
My support for the Bill is almost 100 per cent. I regret that banding was included in the Bill. I do not believe that in the long term that will take us towards an end of selection, but that is an argument that we shall have within the family and I do not have to air it now.
Tremendous emphasis has been placed throughout the debate on comprehensive education on the question of choice. Last week, in the two weeks before that and again today in a telephone call from my agent I was asked to take up the case of parents in my constituency who are deeply upset because their children did not get

a place in the grammar school of their choice. Part of my constituency is in that area of Berkshire which has not gone comprehensive. The parents are complaining that they have not got what they chose.
When the Conservatives defend the selection process on the ground that it gives the majority of parents a choice they are talking utter rubbish. That is not the case, and it never has been. The minority of parents get the schools they choose, but large numbers of parents put down on the form not the school of their choice but the school that they are persuaded by the teachers their children are most likely to get into. The question of choice has always been a red herring.
Throughout discussion on the Bill, and in many other discussions about education, people have talked of what some regard as falling standards in education and what others see as changing attitudes. We all express concern about education. It has been one of my main interests in the House. We have been concerned about values in education, the way in which it affects young people and whether the children are getting the best possible opportunities.
As a mother and ex-teacher, I believe that the State system will come into its own only when the people who legislate for it use it. Those who legislate for other people's children but are not prepared to use the establishments and institutions for which they make laws are guilty of gross misrepresentation. People who care about education and are involved in it should be prepared to put their children where their care is. They should use the State system. When those who legislate for the State system begin to use it, we shall see the changes in the interests of the consumer that many of us wish to see.
In this argument about comprehensive education, it is a bit of a nerve for those who do not use the system to make decisions and regulations for other people's children while keeping as far away from the State system as they can.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I shall try to be brief and not to follow the example of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw), though I give him full marks for honesty.


He said that he was an unrepentant supporter of neighbourhood comprehensive schools. The hon. Member has a great deal of missionary work to do among his hon. and right hon. Friends.
When the Prime Minister took office, he spoke on television about preserving our existing freedoms. If this Bill is an example of that, God help us all. The aim of the Bill is to take away the freedom of local education authorities to decide on the type of education they want in their areas. Local democracy and the wishes of local people are conveniently ignored.
The Bill aims to destroy our grammar schools. I cannot understand why any government should want to destroy schools of proven excellence, especially when there is no concrete evidence in this country, in Sweden or in the United States that the new system is an improvement on the old system.
There is no need for the urgency with which the Government are seeking to enforce this change. Hon. Members opposite are biting the hands that fed them. Many of them had the benefit of grammar school education and are now seeking to deny it to other people's children.
It would also make interesting reading to know where hon. Members opposite send their children and grandchildren to school. We have the ex-Prime Minister sending his son to University College School, Hampstead. The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection sent her child to a voluntary-aided school, the Prime Minister's daughter went to a direct-grant school and his granddaughter is going to St. Paul's Girls School. In addition, the Secretary of State for Education sent his daughter to the City of London School for Girls, which is an independent school. If my information is correct, she left in 1971 when there were plenty of comprehensive schools available in the London areas.

Mr. Mulley: I should like to put the record straight. In neither case did I spend a penny on the education of my daughters. They were educated through the ILEA system. They went through the 11-plus. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] I took one away from the direct-grant school to which she had gone on a scholarship at the age of 11 because

she failed her O-levels and she got an "A" in her A-levels at a comprehensive school.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Montgomery: I shall not withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman said that his daughters were educated in the Inner London Education Authority area. The fact remains that he sent his daughter to the City of London School for Girls—an independent school. If my information is correct, she left in 1971 when there were plenty of comprehensive schools in the London area. What I question is this: if it is right for other people's children to go to comprehensive schools, why is it that so many children of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side are not sent to comprehensive schools?
This Government speak with two tongues. On the one hand, they destroy good schools and replace them with schools which are not yet proven and, on the other, with 37 other countries, they sign a United Nations International Convention, which becomes effective on 23rd September, which assures the safety of public schools and independent education.
This is a squalid Bill. The Government have got their priorities wrong. Instead of dealing with this unwanted legislation, the Secretary of State and the Government should be more concerned about unemployment among teachers, which is the worst since the 1930s, and the terrible problem of school-leavers who have no jobs to which to go. If we had been seen to be spending our time discussing and trying to find a solution to these vexed questions, it would have been more beneficial than giving a Third Reading to this piece of political humbug.

11.47 p.m.

Dr. Hampson: Perhaps we may get away from so much of the rhetoric that has flown around in the debate and get back to what the Bill is about. The Bill is not, as so many Labour Members seem to believe, about the arguments of 30 or even 10 years ago—namely, whether there should be comprehensive schools in this country. Clearly—the record is plain for all to see—comprehensive schools have grown throughout the country. They have been backed by Tory


authorities, which were some of the first to launch them, and by Tory Secretaries of State. In answer to two or three hon. Gentlemen, it is already the form of State education that the majority of children undergo.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Hampson: No.

Mr. Christopher Price: Mr. Christopher Price rose—

Dr. Hampson: I must in all fairness say that, because of the shortness of time and largely because the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) spoke for so long, I have not time to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry.

Mr. Christopher Price: Mr. Christopher Price rose—

Dr. Hampson: I want to try to make a few reasoned points before the Minister of State replies. The Bill is not about comprehensive education, and the Opposition are not seeking to bash the idea of comprehensive education in terms of selection or non-selection at the age of 11.

Mr. Christopher Price: Mr. Christopher Price rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dr. Hampson: We oppose the Bill because it is badly drafted, irrelevant and does not deal with any of the key issues that concern parents: standards, discipline or teaching methods. Above all, it is taking a bulldozer to smash what the Government believe is the nut of the problem—namely, what they believe to be seven recalcitrant local education authorities.
In the process of using this type of legislation, this travesty of an interpretation of the 1944 Act, the Government are causing untold damage to the principles on which our education system has gradually evolved. The 1944 balance of power between the rights and obligations of parents and of local education authorities and the position of the Secretary of State has been overthrown by the Bill.
In Committee, when they were more honest at times, hon. Gentlemen opposite and spokesmen for the Government admitted that, far from being a trivial or

minor Bill, though short, it did in fact—

Mr. Christopher Price: Miscellaneous.

Dr. Hampson: It is miscellaneous. That is why we had the opportunity of tabling so many new clauses.

Mr. Christopher Price: Mr. Christopher Price rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) must not intervene if the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) does not wish to give way.

Dr. Hampson: It was a miscellaneous measure and, therefore, we put down new clauses to deal with all these important matters which the Government dismiss so cavalierly.
The balance of power has been destroyed. The Government admitted that the fundamental balance has changed. The local education authorities used to be obliged to carry out certain functions under Sections 11 and 12 of the 1944 Act. Those sections were never used. Local education authorities are now required to submit plans within six months. Local education authorities, although committed to comprehensive reorganisation, have found it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out a complete reorganisation in years, and cannot produce proposals in that short space of time.
The Government will oblige local education authorities to produce an outline—they call it a sketch map—of how they foresee their entire reorganisation taking place, from the first stage to the conclusion. If the Government do not like those plans, they will require local education authorities to submit further proposals to cover those aspects which the Secretary of State does not like.
The Government speak benignly. They say that it is the spirit that matters and that it is not what is written down that matters. What matters is how they intend to use their power. Once the power is given, however, any other Secretary of State may use it as he will. In many respects this Secretary of State may be well intentioned. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But let us take the case of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) or the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). Their


approach to this matter, as to so many others, would involve a quite different emphasis, and an intolerance which so far we have not seen in the present ministerial team.
There are anomalies in this measure. Some parts of the sketch map will go straight through under Section 13 of the 1944 Act; other parts will not. If a local authority does not have the means—largely as a result of the financial difficulties caused by the harsh climate that the Government have introduced into public spending—to implement the sketch map or grand design, the Secretary of State may nevertheless say that it has been dilatory and that it must get cracking and submit more detailed proposals to the Government. There is power under the Bill for the Secretary of State to say that a local authority is required by a certain time to produce more detailed proposals which will go through under Section 13 procedures.
That is a fundamental change in the education law of this country. Until this point, local education authorities have had discretion. They have decided whether schools should change their character. They have decided when the initiatives should be introduced and in what form. That power now passes to the Secretary of State and central Government, at a time when the people are fed to the teeth with more central Government and the "Big Brother" attitude demonstrated by this Government.
I say that the local education authorities should put the matter to the test. By all means they should give general sketch maps to the Secretary of State and proceed to meet the requirements of the law. They should let the matter go for as long as they wish. If the parties locally in power change, or if the education situation changes, they should change their plans, submit different Section 13 plans and see what the Secretary of State has to say.
This Bill is unlike the 1970 proposals in that it denies any say to parents, teachers or governors in the drafting of the basic sketch maps of their authorities' reorganisation plans. Parents, teachers, and governors only have the right to make objections when the Section 13 stage is

reached. Under the Bill, they do not have the right to comment upon the sketch maps proposed by the local education authorities at the formative stage.
In many ways education reflects the attitude of the regime pursuing the educational policies. The Bill reflects entirely the ideology of members of the Labour Party. It is based on the myth of the "genuine" comprehensive school, to which the Minister referred earlier. There can be no such thing as a genuine comprehensive school: it must reflect the area, the neighbourhood and the abilities to be found in that area. However, it will not contain the whole range of abilities or courses. Therefore, it is unreal to demand it.
Government supporters believe that such an instrument can be used to attain the goal of a Socialist millennium, but we do not believe it. The difference between us is that whereas they want to impose that goal on society, regardless of resources, we want to go back to the gradualist approach which has marked our history and our education history since 1944 and let institutions evolve, just as the comprehensive system itself has sprung from many different roots and, therefore, today has such a variegated pattern. It is diversity, flexibility and parental choice which we believe to be the essence of our education system and which we shall seek to restore when we form the next Government.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: On one matter and one matter only the Opposition have been absolutely right throughout the protracted proceedings on the Bill. It is in their belief that the Bill is a major piece of legislation and that it marks a dramatic change in direction for the British education system. They are right. I share that view. It is a major piece of legislation—perhaps in educational terms one of the few pieces of legislation in this century that will rank with the 1944 Education Act.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) was speaking earlier, he said that the proposition that we should have throughout the country a totally comprehensive system was one which had been advanced for many years by the Labour Party. Of course, he was right. [Interruption.] I heard what was


said in an interjection from the Opposition Benches—"Therefore, it must be wrong." That is exactly what has conditioned the attitude of the Conservative Party throughout our debates on the Bill. They have said "We are not concerned with educational principle. We are not concerned with the opportunities available to children in this country. The Labour Party has advanced it and, therefore, it must be wrong."
Throughout the Committee stage, we tolerated day after day the argument that selection was desirable, and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said that selection was desirable but, of course, in a non-selective system. Essentially, that was his argument for 35 sittings of the Committee, and at the end of the day the hon. Gentleman is still saying "No, the Bill is wrong. We do not want it because it imposes non-selectivity, whereas we believe in a nonselective system with selection operating within it."
Throughout 35 sittings we had the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) saying that he believed, as a good, new, liberal young Conservative, that we should have a non-selective system nationally, at the same time telling the Committee that his differences with the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) were minimal.

We had the hon. Member for Brent, North telling us that he believed in selection for not only English, mathematics or whatever discipline it might be, but for truants, thieves and arsonists. That was what we put up with for 35 sittings.

We have an Opposition who have manifested themselves in their attitude to the Bill as an Opposition with no policy, as we have seen tonight. But they have succeeded in uniting liberal Members of the House, and it is no accident that the Liberal Party will be going into the Division Lobby with the Government. It is not because we agree on every detail. Certainly it is not because we have desired to introduce compulsion. It is, as the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said so carefully, because there are recalcitrant authorities throughout the country which have manifested the attitude which has been shown throughout our debates by the hon. Member for Chelmsford—

It being Twelve o'clock Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes, 269.

Division No. 267.]
AYES
[12 midnight


Abse, Leo
Canavan, Dennis
Doig, Peter


Allaun, Frank
Cant, R. B.
Dormand, J. D.


Anderson, Donald
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Archer, Peter
Carter, Ray
Duffy, A. E. P.


Armstrong, Ernest
Cartwright, John
Dunn, James A.


Ashton, Joe
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dunnett, Jack


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Clemitson, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Atkinson, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Eadie, Alex


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cohen, Stanley
Edge, Geoff


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bates, Alf
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bean, R. E.
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ennals, David


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Corbett, Robin
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Bidwell, Sydney
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bishop, E. S.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cronin, John
Faulds, Andrew


Boardman, H.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cryer, Bob
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Flannery, Martin


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)


Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Ford, Ben


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Buchanan, Richard
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Freeson, Reginald


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Freud, Clement


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Campbell, Ian
Dempsey, James
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)




George, Bruce
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sedgemore, Brian


Gilbert, Dr John
MacKenzie, Gregor
Selby, Harry


Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton u-Lyne)


Gould, Bryan
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gourlay, Harry
Madden, Max
Short, Rt. Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Graham, Ted
Magee, Bryan
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mahon, Simon
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)'


Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Small, William


Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Harper, Joseph
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Snape, Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Hatton, Frank
Mendelson, John
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Hooley, Frank
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Strang, Gavin


Horam, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)
Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Moonman, Eric
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Swain, Thomas


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Oakes, Gordon
Tierney, Sydney


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ogden, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Orbach, Maurice
Torney, Tom


Janner, Greville
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ovenden, John
Urwin, T. W.


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Owen, Dr David
Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.


John, Brynmor
Padley, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Palmer, Arthur
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Park, George
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John
Ward, Michael


Judd, Frank
Parry, Robert
Watkins, David


Kaufman, Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkinson, John


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Weetch, Ken


Kerr, Russell
Pendry, Tom
Weitzman, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Perry, Ernest
Wellbeloved, James


Kinnock, Nell
Phipps, Dr Colin
White, James (Pollok)


Lambie, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Whitehead, Phillip


Lamborn, Harry
Prescott, John
Whirlock, William


Lamond, James
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Leadbitter, Ted
Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lee, John
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Litterick, Tom
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Woodall, Alec


Lomas, Kenneth
Rooker, J. W.
Woof, Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Roper, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Luard, Evan
Rose, Paul B.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McCartney, Hugh
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. James Tinn and


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. Frank R. White.


MacFarquhar, Roderick






NOES


Adley, Robert
Biffen, John
Buck, Antony


Aitken, Jonathan
Biggs-Davison, John
Budgen, Nick


Alison, Michael
Blaker, Peter
Bulmer, Esmond


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.


Arnold, Tom
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bottomley, Peter
Carlisle, Mark


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Carson, John


Baker, Kenneth
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Banks, Robert
Bradford, Rev Robert
Channon, Paul


Bell, Ronald
Brittan, Leon
Churchill, W. S.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Brotherton, Michael
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Benyon, W.
Bryan, Sir Paul
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Clegg, Walter







Cockcroft, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Peyton, Rt Hon Jonn


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'dt'd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cordle, John H.
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, James
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kimball, Marcus
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dunlop, John
Kirk, Sir Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliott, Sir William
Lane, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Tim


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Forman, Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sims, Roger


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)
McCrindle, Robert
Sinclair, Sir George


Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacGregor, John
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Speed, Keith


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Spence, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marten, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mates, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maude, Angus
Stanley, John


Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Gorst, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling, Thomas J.


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Norman


Griffiths, Eldon
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hall, Sir John
Monro, Hector
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hampson, Dr Keith
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Viggers, Peter


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wakeham, John


Havers, Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey
Walker_Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony
Wall, Patrick


Heseltine, Michael
Neubert, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Higgins, Terence L.
Normanton, Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Philip
Nott, John
Wells, John


Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Younger, Hon George


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)



Hunt, John (Bromley)
Paisley, Rev Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hurd, Douglas
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Mike Roberts and


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Mr. Fred Silvester.




Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — WOLVERHAMPTON DISTRICT GENERAL HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do not adjourn.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

12.14 a.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am delighted to have this opportunity—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Will lion. Members who wish to leave the Chamber please withdraw quietly.

Mrs. Short: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise the whole question of the completion of the district general hospital in Wolverhampton. I shall paint a rather grim picture. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen carefully to my arguments and not simply read out the departmental brief, which probably will not answer my points. We face a serious situation, and I hope that we can get some assurances from my hon. Friend that action will be taken without further delay to see that the completion of this hospital goes ahead.
The important thing to remember is that the Wolverhampton Area Health Authority has eight hospitals under its wing. These are the New Cross Hospital in Wolverhampton, which is the largest with 1,091 beds; the Royal Hospital with 316 beds; the Queen Victoria Nursing Institution with 48 beds, which are mostly private beds and some dermatology beds; the Parkfields Hospital, which has 66 beds; the Children's Hospital with 30 beds; the Patshull Rehabilitation Centre with 60 beds; the Wolverhampton and Midland Counties Eye Infirmary with 103 beds; and the Women's Hospital with 12 beds.
Those hospitals serve a large population and all of them, except for the New Cross Hospital, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, are small units which are difficult and uneconomic to run. They serve an official population of 268,000. Twenty-four per cent. of the population is under 15 years of age—we have a large number of children—and 10 per cent. of the population is over 65.
As I shall show presently, the population which those hospitals actually serve is very much larger because we have large areas outside the Wolverhampton boundaries, in the West Midlands as a whole and in Shropshire, which look to the Wolverhampton hospitals, and have done for generations, for their hospital services. An important factor to bear in mind when deciding a site for a new district general hospital for the whole of the West Midlands area is that those specialties are sub-regional centres as well.
The potential in-patient cases for ENT, including the Wolverhampton population, total almost 500,000–424,000 to be exact—which is 58 per cent. more than the official catchment area of 268,000. If we consider the ophthalmic catchment area—this is one of the sub-regional specialties—we serve a population of 894,000, which is a very large population indeed.
If we look at the waiting lists—I have the figures for 31st March 1976—we find that a serious position is reflected. It indicates the need for more development, more beds and more special provision to be made in this district general hospital. As far as general surgery is concerned, the waiting list at the Royal Hospital is 558. At the New Cross Hospital it is 510. Thus, for general surgery we have over 1,000 patients on the waiting list, and some of them have been waiting for a very long time indeed.
There are 91 tonsils and adenoids cases on the waiting list at New Cross Hospital, and at the Royal Hospital the number of cases on the waiting list for ENT operations is 94. There are no fewer than 217 orthopaedic cases on the waiting list at New Cross Hospital. Some of those concern specialised operations for hip replacement. I have patients in my constituency who have been waiting for two years or more. They are elderly patients, and two years is a long time for such patients to wait for this particular operation.
The ophthalmology waiting list at the Eye Infirmary, which is a specialty for the region, totals 807. Many of those are also elderly patients who are waiting for cataract operations. To have to wait many months, or even a year, is a long time for that type of operation. The gynaecology waiting list at New Cross is 420 patients.
Clearly we can prove the case for completion of phase two of the hospital on the grounds of population served, need, and waiting lists for urgent cases.
The building programme stems from way back in 1962, when the Minister of Health of the day produced his Hospital Plan for England and Wales. The purpose was
to give to the hospital services of England and Wales both the physical equipment and also the pattern and setting which will everywhere place the most modern treatment at the service of patients and enable the staffs who care for them to exercise their skill and devotion under the best circumstances".
Although that was as long ago as 1962, we are a long way from realising that ideal situation in Wolverhampton. The plan proposed a new major district general hospital built on the New Cross site. It was envisaged that when that new hospital was completed the Royal, the Wolverhampton and Midland Counties Eye Infirmary, the Queen Victoria Nursing Institution, the Patshull Rehabilitation Centre and the Penn Children's Hospital would be closed. All the small units to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, those with a small number of beds—old and inefficient to run and, as I shall show, highly uneconomic in broad terms—would be closed; we would have a new district hospital which would embrace all the specialties and provide the present number of beds and more in one hospital.
We have built the first phase of the redevelopment. That is complete. We have a maternity unit, a geriatric unit, a new boiler house, an area laundry, kitchens and dining room and a splendid education centre, which is greatly used and appreciated, and there is additional staff accommodation. But the difficulties which I want to describe are the result of the delay in building the second phase.
I wrote to the West Midlands Regional Health Authority last April and had a reply from the regional administrator to say that when the authority considered the 10-year building programme up to 1985–86 it was regretted that it was not possible to include phase two of the general hospital at New Cross in the programme. That is indeed a black prospect. We are talking of another period of 10 years, at least, of existing in the same deplorable conditions as we now have

to suffer. I submit to my hon. Friend that this is a disgraceful situation.
Being optimistic, the area health authority, hoping that the New Cross development would take place on schedule, pursued a policy of operating the Royal Hospital and New Cross as one unit to facilitate the transfer of services from the Royal to New Cross. One has to remember that the hospitals are not particularly close to each other. New Cross is on one side of the area, in my constituency, and the Royal is across the town in the other constituency. This means that we have many departments in these hospitals which are divided, not only between New Cross and the Royal but between them and one or two others as well. My hon. Friend can imagine the difficulties faced by medical staff in shuttling around between two or three hospitals to see patients, both in-patients and out-patients.
The departments which are divided between two or more hospitals are general medical, thoracic, dermatology, paediatrics, general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, ENT, urology and dental surgery. That means that it is extremely difficult to give consultant cover in every place where it should be given, to deploy junior medical staff adequately and to provide emergency services, which have to be duplicated and sometimes triplicated. It means that nursing and administrative services have to be duplicated. There are additional costs in transporting staff, specimens, medical records and so on.
When we are concerned, as I am particularly as Chairman of the Social Services Expenditure Sub-Committee, with the increasing cost of running the National Health Service, we should be especially concerned about these conditions. We are wasting an enormous amount of money on this kind of duplication and triplication, money which should be spent on improving the service to patients.
That is one side of the question, the immediate problem. In the near future we face wasteful expenditure which should go towards the completion of this hospital. There is a serious situation in out-patient accommodation in the old hospitals which affects the area as a whole. Plans are being produced to build the first phase of a new out-patient department at a cost of £300,000.
The laboratories at the Royal and New Cross Hospitals need extending. Specimens often have to be taken from New Cross Hospital across town by taxi or other transport to the laboratory at the Royal. That again is nonsense. We need a new chemical pathology laboratory at New Cross Hospital which will cost about £60,000. The New Cross X-ray department needs extending at an estimated cost of £150,000.
I have seen all these problems for myself. The conditions at the Eye Infirmary are scandalous: one cannot swing a cat there. If it is to function in future it will have to be replaced, at a cost of over £500,000, yet it will have to be demolished when the hospital is ultimately absorbed into New Cross Hospital. The main kitchen at the Royal Hospital is unsatisfactory and unhygienic, yet expenditure on it will also be wasteful when ultimately the hospital will be closed. But a new one is needed at a cost of £340,000.
The cobalt therapy machine at the Royal Hospital, on which the radiotherapy department is totally dependent, needs replacing—again, in an old hospital which will eventually be closed—at a cost of about £110,000.
In all, that is expenditure of £1½ million on old hospitals for some make-shift development at New Cross Hospital, which will eventually be replaced or absorbed by the new plans. In addition, we need new beds for orthopaedic and accident surgery, for geriatrics, psycho-geriatrics and radiotherapy. This is formidable expenditure, which is likely to be necessary very soon.
A further complication, which the Minister probably knows about, is the question of the future of the RAF Hospital at Cosford. If it is closed—there is pressure for it to be closed on grounds of economy—many of the patients currently admitted there will obviously look to Wolverhampton for hospital care. This would require an additional operating theatre, more beds, two wards, and more residential accommodation at New Cross—all at a cost of possibly £600,000. We face possible additional expenditure of £3 million.
The Secretary of State or the Minister of State should accede to my request and visit Wolverhampton to look at the prob-

lems on the ground and discuss them with the staff who have to struggle with them. I have asked my right hon. Friend to do this, but I have not yet had his reply.
There should be a proper assessment of the service given by the Wolverhampton hospitals to a wide area of the West Midlands, far beyond the boundaries of Wolverhampton, to see exactly what the service is, what population is served and what specialties should be developed in the region and sub-region.
We should look closely at the expenditure position and at the folly of spending nearly half the cost of the new phase two of the district general hospital on patching up the old hospitals that should have been pensioned off years ago but are still being used. We should draw from this the lesson that if we go on cutting NHS expenditure it will be counterproductive, because building proposals and projects that are withdrawn from building lists cost more when they are eventually built, as we have seen from 1962 onwards. That happened again in 1972 when the cuts took place. No saving is made because the cost eventually is very much greater.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me assurances on these points and that he will say that we are developing phase two of the district general hospital without further delay.

12.32 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) on securing the Adjournment debate tonight and on the forceful way she has set out the problems facing the hospital service in Wolverhampton and drawn attention to the need for phase two of the New Cross development.
I certainly accept that hospital services in Wolverhampton are under pressure. According to a statistical report prepared by the West Midlands Regional Health Authority, at 31st December last 860 patients were waiting for general surgery, 348 for ENT operations, 255 for traumatic and orthopaedic treatment, 444 for gynaecological treatment and 731 for ophthalmic treatment. These are formidable figures. Further, as my hon. Friend said, if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State authorises the closure of Cosford


Hospital, the Wolverhampton Area Health Authority estimates that it will immediately pick up about half the case load—nearly 2,000 in-patients and 10,000 out-patient attendances per year.
The truth of the matter is, however, that nearly all hospital facilities in the region, and indeed the country, are under heavy pressure. On waiting lists, as my hon. Friend stressed, the situation in Wolverhampton is comparatively favourable compared with the West Midlands Region as a whole. Of the 22 districts in the region, at 31st December last Wolverhampton was the sixth most favourably placed in terms of general surgery, third in ENT, fourth in trauma and orthopaedic, ninth in gynaecology and third in ophthalmology.
I do not set too much store by these comparisons, because waiting lists are notoriously difficult to use as indicators of pressure on services. Of course, at present they are particularly difficult because of the distortion caused by the differential impact of the doctors' industrial dispute. Nevertheless, the figures I have quoted at least suggest that Wolverhampton's position in the West Midlands is not particularly unfavourable.
This becomes even clearer when relative levels of provision are considered. On its native population of about 270,000 plus the 30,000 people who live in the Seisdon part of Staffordshire, who are expected always to look to Wolverhampton for hospital services, Wolverhampton has adequate acute, maternity and psychiatric beds, though it is short of geriatric and mental handicap beds. The problem is that at present Wolverhampton is serving a rather larger population, perhaps as high as 370,000, and this is generating the pressure. I shall return to this problem in a moment.
Before doing so, I should like to answer the point made by my hon. Friend that existing facilities are split among several hospitals and that a more efficient and economical service could be provided if the bulk of facilities were concentrated on the New Cross site. I entirely accept this point but emphasise that in having facilities spread among several hospitals Wolverhampton is by no means unique. The Redditch/Bromsgrove district of Hereford and Worcestershire and several

other districts in the region suffer from the same difficulty, for the many reasons given by my hon. Friend. In the present difficult economic climate, rationalisation of services, desirable in itself, must take second place to meeting major gaps in the services.
It may be claimed that because many of the existing facilities are sub-standard, partly at least because maintenance has been deferred in the expectation of phase two of New Cross, facilities have been lost. I have not visited Wolverhampton myself, though my right hon. Friend the Minister of State hopes to go there in the autumn, but I am advised that conditions at some of the hospitals are by no means ideal. In comparative terms, however, the Wolverhampton hospitals come out fifth best of the 22 districts within the region on an analysis by the regional health authority of the quality of buildings.
I turn now to the key issue—namely, pressure on the existing facilities in Wolverhampton. With a population of around 300,000, the area is sufficiently provided with acute and maternity facilities, but I acknowledge that at present Wolverhampton is serving a far larger population. Indeed, at present it is estimated that 30 per cent. of the patients treated in Wolverhampton come from outside the area. The reason for this is that, compared with Wolverhampton, the neighbouring areas of Staffordshire, Dudley, Walsall, Sandwell and East Salop are poorly provided for in terms of hospital facilities.
At its meeting in March, the West Midlands Regional Health Authority considered the needs of the 22 districts and drew up an outline strategy for major capital developments in the region over the next 10 years. This strategy includes major developments in Stafford, Dudley, Walsall and Telford. These schemes, together with major developments at present under construction in Sandwell and Shrewsbury, will greatly reduce the pressure on Wolverhampton from people living outside the area. At the same March meeting, however, the RHA clearly judged that it would not be possible to start the next phase of New Cross in the next 10 years.
The House will not need to be told that at present the money available for hospital building is far lower than we


would otherwise wish. Indeed, there is considerable speculation that the situation may get worse before it gets better. It is by no means certain that the West Midlands RHA will be able to start all the schemes in its outline strategy in the next 10 years, and I must say quite frankly that there seems no possibility whatsoever of a start on phase two of New Cross for many years.
It is thus clear that the hospital service in Wolverhampton will continue to be under heavy pressure for some years, though the situation should be eased progressively as new developments in the neighbouring areas come on stream. There will also undoubtedly be significant improvements to Wolverhampton hospitals through minor capital works programmes delegated to the area health authority or run by the RHA.
Further, I accept the need for propping-up schemes. Clearly, if old buildings have to continue in use when ideally they should be replaced, some maintenance and replacement will be necessary. Ideally this money should be used as part of the cost of completely replacing the old facilities, but at a time when capital is tight health authorities often have to opt for the cheap solution in the short run when it might not be cheapest in the long run. I must make it clear, however, that while accepting the principle of the need for propping-up schemes, I am not accepting any particular "shopping list". This must be for the RHA to consider.
The outlook for acute services in Wolverhampton in the foreseeable future is, therefore, one of the maintenance and improvement of existing facilitites rather than of major new development and rationalisation. The prospects for Wolverhampton are not entirely gloomy, however.
As I said earlier, there is an acknowledged shortfall in geriatric provision.

To remedy this, a development is currently under way at Penn which will provide 84 beds by 1978. Further, another 84-bed scheme, West Park, is being considered by Ministers as part of the 1976–77 capital building programme. These two schemes together would make a very significant improvement on the level of geriatric provision in the area.
I recognise that what I have said tonight about the prospects for phase two of New Cross will be disappointing to many people, although I hope that substantial improvement in the geriatric service will be welcomed. I know that the second phase of New Cross has long been cherished, and, of course, it is little consolation to those working in less than ideal conditions to be told that there is no likelihood of a major improvement in the next 10 years and that what money is available will be spent elsewhere.
Nevertheless, as a Government we are committed to a policy of concentrating resources on the most deprived areas. The West Midlands RHA has concluded that in the context of major capital developments Wolverhampton is not one of the most deprived areas in the region, and on the information available to me I am bound to agree. But because of the likely developments in neighbouring areas that I have already described, the pressure on the existing facilities at Wolverhampton should be progressively reduced over the coming years. With the improvements that will take place through minor capital works programmes, including undoubtedly some propping-up schemes, I am sure that the overall situation will become progressively much more satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.